Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 26-34, drawn to a method of treating brines in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that, the applicated states, “the method and system claims share the common inventive technical feature of conveying the iced slurry via a water screw.” This is not found persuasive because we still believe, regardless of the information found in the International Preliminary Report on Patentability, that there is no special shared technical feature between the two groups. The examiner understands the applicant’s arguments and reasoning regarding their belief of an improper restriction; however, even if the applicant’s argument is correct, which we do not agree with, the stated shared technical feature of a water screw conveying an ice slurry, is already known in the art, and thus would similarly make a restriction of these groups proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 35-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2023 and 12/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) in view of Roth (US3170778A).
In regards to claim 26, Bakkenes teaches a method of treating brines comprising the steps of: pre-cooling the brines using an indirect cooling method; {Paragraph 32, "until ice, sodium chloride, and a mother liquor are obtained, is affected by indirect cooling"} further cooling the brines in a vessel {Paragraph 34, "cooling step is therefore preferably performed in a vessel"} using a refrigerant {Paragraph 33, "Indirect cooling of the brine is achieved … via a closed circuit with a cooling medium… said cooling medium is cooled using a refrigerant"} to a first temperature equal to a eutectic freezing point of a first mineral salt suspended in the brines so as to transform the brines into a first iced slurry; {Paragraph 37, "The cooled brine … will subsequently be cooled further in a fluidized bed heat exchanger/crystallizer to the eutectic temperature"} separating ice from the first iced slurry {Paragraph 38, "sodium chloride dihydrate … is separated from the formed ice and optionally mother liquor at the eutectic temperature … using conventional means"} in a separator, {Paragraph 39, "Separation … is performed using … one or more separation vessels"} the separated ice being returned for use as part of the pre-cooling step; {Paragraph 40, "ice may subsequently be melted. Preferably, a part is recycled as wash liquid to the wash column. The cold generated by the melting step can be used to precool fresh raw brine"} filtering the remainder of the first iced slurry {Paragraph 42, "The sodium chloride dihydrate-rich steam … may be purified before it is subjected to recrystallization step (iv)"} to recover crystallised mineral salts suspended therein. {Paragraph 43, "purified sodium chloride dihydrate is fed to a recrystallizer to form sodium chloride"}
Bakkenes does not teach:
Claim 26: Conveying the brines and first iced slurry at least partly through the vessel used to further cool the brines way of a water screw so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place.
However, Roth teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 that the invention of Bakkenes does not teach.
In regards to claim 26, Roth teaches conveying the brines and first iced slurry at least partly through the vessel used to further cool the brines way of a water screw so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Column 7 lines 3-7, "The extension or upwardly inclined portion 117 has therein a suitable means shows as a screw-type conveyor 121 for transport of the discrete particles together with their layers of ice"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Roth with the system of Bakkenes because Bakkenes and Roth both utilize freeze desalination of brine with the goal of purification of components within the brine. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because the system of Roth utilizes “seeding particles” which allows ice to form in substantial quantity in terms of surface area relative to weight as compared to the formation of ice crystals without the seeding material, making the system faster and thus more efficient. {Roth, column 1 lines 46-53}
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) and Roth (US3170778A), in further view of Roth (US3170778A)
The combination of Bakkenes and Roth teach all of the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned in the prior 103 rejection.
This combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach:
Claim 27: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, where a bubbling gas is introduced into the brines so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place.
However, Roth, in a separate embodiment, further teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 that the earlier combination of Bakkenes and Roth do not teach.
In regards to claim 27, Roth further teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, where a bubbling gas is introduced into the brines so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Column 2 lines 46-50, "the multiplicity of bubbles or subdivided gaseous refrigerant form in line 24 in order to provide increase separation rate of particles of the seeding material"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the bubbling of refrigerant technique of Roth with the previously combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because, while taught in a separate embodiment of Roth, the invention still utilizes freeze desalination with the goal of the purification of contents within the brine, and nowhere does Roth teach away of combining elements from different embodiments within their own disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the bubbling of refrigerant technique of Roth with the previously combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because these bubbles, aside from acting to further cool the mixture, they “impart added buoyancy to the seeding particles, thus aiding in floating the seeding particles with ice adherent thereto the surface. This increases the speed of operation, and thus increases the efficiency.” {Roth, column 1 lines 66-71}
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) and Roth (US3170778A), in further view of Efrat (WO2012104787A1).
The combination of Bakkenes and Roth teach all of the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
This combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach:
Claim 28: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including the step of applying a super-hydrophobic coating to the internal surface of the vessel.
However, Efrat teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 not taught by the combination of Bakkenes and Roth.
In regards to claim 28, Efrat teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including the step of applying a super-hydrophobic coating to the internal surface of the vessel. {Page 15 paragraph 56, "the plates may be coated with super-hydrophobic substance"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention Efrat, specifically the freezing chamber features, with the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because Efrat is similarly disclosing a method of freeze desalination, with slight improvements and variations the prior combined invention. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because the addition of a vertical chamber and super-hydrophobic coating onto the surfaces of the plates and walls, opposed to a non-vertical chamber, increases the efficiency of stirring and therefore mixing of the brine or liquid to be desalinated. {Efrat, page 16 paragraph 59}
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) and Roth (US3170778A), in further view of Thiers (US20190352194A1).
The combination of Bakkenes and Roth teach all of the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
This combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach:
Claim 29: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including a step of pre-treating the brines.
Claim 30: The method of treating brines according to claim 29, where the step of pre-treating the brines involves chemical treatment of the brines.
However, Thiers teaches all of the limitations of claims 29-30 that the combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach.
In regards to claim 29, Thiers teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including a step of pre-treating the brines. {Page 8 paragraph 115, "The feedwater 45 … can be fed to one or more pretreatment units"}
In regards to claim 30, Thiers teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 29, where the step of pre-treating the brines involves chemical treatment of the brines. {Page 8 paragraph 115, "The feedwater 45 … can be fed to one or more pretreatment units such as … either by addition of chemicals"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pretreatment capabilities Thiers with the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because Thiers specifically discloses their method and systems can be used for pretreatment of solutions to be desalinated, which the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth was created to do. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because pretreating the solutions can be used to separate scale-forming impurities of the solutions to inhibit scale formation on internal units downstream of the pretreatment units {Thiers, page 8 paragraph 115} and removing scales from those internal surfaces is costly and slow. {Theirs, page 42 paragraph 1116}
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1), Roth (US3170778A), and Thiers (US20190352194A1); in further view of Wessling (EP3045431A1).
The combination of Bakkenes, Roth, and Thiers teach all of the limitations of claim 26 and 29-30, as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
This combination of Bakkenes, Roth, and Thiers does not teach:
Claim 31: The method of treating brines according to claim 29, where the step of pre-treating the brines involves capacitive deionization of the brines by passing the brines through a stack of electrode pairs.
However, Wessling teaches all of the limitations of claim 31 that the combination of Bakkenes, Roth, and Thiers does not teach.
In regards to claim 31, Wessling teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 29, where the step of pre-treating the brines involves capacitive deionization of the brines by passing the brines through a stack of electrode pairs. {Column 8 paragraph 39, "a stack for continuous water desalination, ion separation and selective ion removal and concentration by capacitive deionization" and Column 8 paragraph 40, "(1) applying a voltage between first and second current collectors" and Figure 7 references (1-2)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deionization capabilities of Wessling with the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because the invention of Wessling is similarly to Bakkenes and Roth, attempted to improve the process and efficiency of desalination. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because passing water to be desalinated through a channel of anodes, cathodes, and ion exchange membranes results in better desalination efficiency. {Wessling, page 2 paragraph 8}
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) and Roth (US3170778A), in further view of Avco Corp (GB1453645A).
The combination of Bakkenes and Roth teach all of the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 32 Bakkenes further teaches cooling the brines in the vessel {Paragraph 34, "cooling step is therefore preferably performed in a vessel"} using a refrigerant {Paragraph 33, "Indirect cooling of the brine is achieved … via a closed circuit with a cooling medium… said cooling medium is cooled using a refrigerant"} to a second temperature equal to a eutectic freezing point of a second mineral salt suspended in the brines so as to transform the brines into a second iced slurry; {Paragraph 37, "The cooled brine … will subsequently be cooled further in a fluidized bed heat exchanger/crystallizer to the eutectic temperature"} separating the ice from the second ice slurry {Paragraph 38, "sodium chloride dihydrate … is separated from the formed ice and optionally mother liquor at the eutectic temperature … using conventional means"} in the separator, {Paragraph 39, "Separation … is performed using … one or more separation vessels"} the separated ice being returned for use as part of the pre-cooling step; {Paragraph 40, "ice may subsequently be melted. Preferably, a part is recycled as wash liquid to the wash column. The cold generated by the melting step can be used to precool fresh raw brine"} and filtering the remainder of the second ice slurry {Paragraph 42, "The sodium chloride dihydrate-rich steam … may be purified before it is subjected to recrystallization step (iv)"} to recover crystallised mineral salts suspended therein. {Paragraph 43, "purified sodium chloride dihydrate is fed to a recrystallizer to form sodium chloride"}
In regards to claim 32 Roth further teaches conveying the brines and second iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines so as to prevent the second iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Column 7 lines 3-7, "The extension or upwardly inclined portion 117 has therein a suitable means shows as a screw-type conveyor 121 for transport of the discrete particles together with their layers of ice"}
This combination of Bakkenes and Roth do not teach:
Claim 32: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; and wherein, the eutectic freezing point of the first mineral salt is greater than the eutectic freezing point of the second mineral salt.
Claim 34: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including at least one step of drying the recovered crystallised mineral salts.
However, Avco Corp teaches all of the limitations of claims 32 and 34 that the combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach.
In regards to claim 32, Avco Corp teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; {Page 3 lines 80-86, "The one-stage process … is virtually repeated in the two-stage process … the dilute concentrate … is piped to the freezer-crystallizer of the second stage"} and wherein, the eutectic freezing point of the first mineral salt is greater than the eutectic freezing point of the second mineral salt. {Page 3 lines 95-101, "the second stage concentrate produced in this wash column … has a freezing point substantially lower than the freezing point of the … concentrate produced in the first stage"}
In regards to claim 34, Avco Corp teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including at least one step of drying the recovered crystallised mineral salts. {Page 3 lines 90-92, "to obtain dissolved or suspended solids in dry form"}
Note that MPEP 2144.04 states, “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. In this combination, Avco Corp teaches the art of a duplicative process, however, in the embodiment used for the rejection, the duplicated system would be the combined inventive system Bakkenes and Roth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these inventions because the invention of Avco Corp falls within the same field of endeavor of freeze desalination, with the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because the invention of Avco utilizes a recycled wash water from the first stage within their second wash stage, claiming this creates a lesser temperature differences between the wash water and the diluted brine, which should help with less freeze-up on the screens within the wash column. {Avco Corp, page 3 lines 95-110}
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined invention of Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) and Roth (US3170778A), in further view of Elshafei (US20170166461A1).
The combination of Bakkenes and Roth teach all of the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
This combination of Bakkenes and Roth do not teach:
Claim 33: The method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including the step of extracting hydrogen from the brines by electrolysis.
However, Elshafei teaches all of the limitations of claim 33 that the combination of Bakkenes and Roth does not teach.
In regards to claim 33, Elshafei teaches the method of treating brines according to claim 26, further including the step of extracting hydrogen from the brines by electrolysis. {Page 9 paragraph 80, "the electrical current that flows from the positive electrode to the negative electrode electrolyzes the brine that results in the formation of the hydrogen … the hydrogen gas may be removed from the chamber"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the electrolysis capabilities of Elshafei with the combined invention of Bakkenes and Roth because these inventions both fall within the same field of desalination. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because they can recycle the brine solution with its generated electrical current, instead of disposing it as waste, and as stated in the rejection, to produce hydrogen and other industrial products that have beneficial uses. {Elshafei, page 10 paragraph 87}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779