DETAILED ACTION
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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) claims 1-20, drawn to a method of purifying water by supplying water into a supersonic gas stream supplied by a shockwave nozzle.
Group II, claim(s) 21-28, drawn to a liquid purification apparatus comprising a shockwave nozzle.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a device capable of carrying out the method of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Coulter et al. (US 2,887,390). See 102 rejection of claim 1 over Coulter below for details.
During a telephone conversation with Thomas Thrash on 12/2/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-28 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coulter et al. (US 2,887,390), hereafter referred to as Coulter.
With regard to claim 1: Coulter teaches a method comprising:
Generating a supersonic gas stream by feeding a gas through a shockwave nozzle (venturi/narrow throat) 45 under conditions sufficient to achieve a supersonic velocity (Figures 6 and 9, Column 5 Line 19-Column 7 Line 20, Column 10 Lines 1-46, Especially column 6 Line 42-Column 7 Line 20 and Column 10 Lines 1-30).
Supplying impure water (i.e. a substance being dried, for example. fruit juices, salt solutions, milk, etc.) to produce a standing fluid wave comprising atomized water droplets downstream from an exit end of the shockwave nozzle 45 (Figures 6 and 9, Column 4 Line 72-Column 5 Line 2, Column 6 Line 43-Column 7 Line 20, Column 9 lines 30-60, Column 10 Lines 1-56).
Wherein the impure water contains one or more contaminants, e.g. salt, fruit juice constituents, milk solids (Column 9 lines 30-60).
Introducing sufficient heat into the standing fluid wave to cause at least a portion of the atomized water droplets to change phase into steam (Column 4 Line 72-Column 5 Line 2, Column 90 Line 30-Column 10 Line 46).
Obtaining the steam (contained within the stream of drying gas) as an overhead stream via pipe 88, said overhead stream separated from an effluent stream (dry powder) comprising at least a portion of the one or more contaminants (Figure 6, Column 6 Lines 9-41, Column 10 Lines 1-56).
With regard to claim 2: The supersonic gas stream comprises a drying gas (Column 6 lines 55-70), wherein said drying gas may be air or nitrogen (Column 5 Lines 60-71).
With regard to claim 3: The impure water is supplied as a continuous fluid stream via supply line 65 (Figures 6 and 9, Column 7 Lines 54-56, Column 9 Lines 30-65).
With regard to claim 4: Heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave by way of hot gas flowing through the shockwave nozzle 45 via converging inlet portion 41, the converging inlet 41 portion being adjacent to the shockwave nozzle 45 from which the standing wave originates (Figure 6, Column 5 Lines 35-60, Column 6 Lines 9-70, Column 9 Line 60-Column 10 Line 45). In this regard, the converging inlet 41 can be characterized as a heat source positioned adjacent the standing wave.
With regard to claim 5: The standing fluid wave is produced within a shockwave tube (diverging discharge section) 43 (Figures 6 and 9, Column 6 Line 70-Column 7 Line 26).
With regard to claim 6: Heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave by way of hot gas flowing through the shockwave nozzle 45 and the shockwave tube 43 (Figure 6, Column 5 Lines 35-60, Column 6 Lines 9-70, Column 9 Line 60-Column 10 Line 45). In this regard, heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave from a heat source located within the shockwave tube.
With regard to claim 7: The impure water is supplied into the shockwave tube (Figures 6 and 9, Column 6 Line 70-Column 7 Line 26, Column 10 Lines 1-56).
With regard to claim 11: In Coulter, the impure water may be a salt solution (Column 9 Lines 30-36). Thus, it is understood that the impure water may be at least a salt water, a brine, and/or a brackish water.
With regard to claim 12: In Coulter, the impure water may comprise organic contaminants, e.g. when the impure water is milk or fruit juice (Figures 6 and 9, Column 9 lines 30-60). At least a portion of said one or more organic contaminates are necessarily pyrolyzed upon introduction of sufficient heat into the standing fluid wave.
With regard to claim 13: In Coulter, the impure water may be a salt solution (Column 9 Lines 30-36). When the impure water is a salt solution, it is understood that the impure water comprises one or more inorganic contaminants, i.e. one or more salts, wherein at least a portion of the one or more inorganic contaminants are concentrated in the effluent stream.
With regard to claim 15: The method of Coulter comprises collecting the steam and condensing it in a dehumidifier 90 where it is condensed, i.e. to dehumidify the drying gas (Figure 6, Column 6 Lines 25-41, Column 10 Lines 45-56).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 10, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter.
With regard to claim 10: Coulter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above.
Coulter is silent to heat being introduced into the standing wave from an electric heating element positioned adjacent the standing fluid wave.
However, electric heating elements are art recognized alternatives to combustion heaters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Coulter by replacing the combustion heater of Coulter with an electric heater, such that heat is introduced into the standing wave from an electric heating element positioned adjacent the standing fluid wave, in order to obtain a predictably functional spray drying method.
With regard to claim 16: Coulter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above.
The method of Coulter comprises collecting the steam and condensing it in a dehumidifier 90 as liquid water, i.e. to dehumidify the drying gas (Figure 6, Column 6 Lines 25-41, Column 10 Lines 45-56).
Coulter is silent to reintroducing the liquid water to the supersonic gas stream.
However, Coulter does teach introducing normal water into the supersonic gas stream during startup operations to keep the liquid supply line cool (Column 9 Lines 40-60). It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to recycle distilled water obtained from an evaporation process for later use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Coulter by reintroducing the liquid water into the supersonic gas stream in a later startup operation, in order to obtain a process wherein the liquid water is put to use and the need for externally supplied water is reduced or eliminated.
With regard to claims 17 and 20: Coulter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above.
The method of Coulter comprises collecting the steam and condensing it in a dehumidifier 90 as liquid water, i.e. to dehumidify the drying gas (Figure 6, Column 6 Lines 25-41, Column 10 Lines 45-56).
Coulter is silent to supplying the liquid water to a parallel process in need thereof.
However, it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to recycle distilled water obtained from an evaporation process, such as the spray drying process of Coulter, for use where needed, e.g. as drinking water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Coulter by supplying the liquid water to a parallel process in need thereof, e.g. a process of supplying drinking water to people or animals, in order to obtain a process wherein the liquid water is put to use.
In the process of modified Coulter, the combined steps of condensing the steam and supplying the liquid water to a parallel process in need thereof together amount to a step of supplying the steam to a parallel process in need thereof.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piterskikh et al. (US 4,183,145), hereafter referred to as Piterskikh, in view of Coulter.
With regard to claim 1: Piterkikh teaches a method comprising:
Generating a supersonic gas stream by feeding a gas through a shockwave nozzle 1 under conditions sufficient to achieve a supersonic velocity (Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6). Note: The shockwave nozzle 1 in Piterkikh produces shockwaves (Columns 5 and 6). Shockwaves propagate faster than the speed of sound, and therefore necessitate that the gas flowing from the shockwave nozzle 1 travels at supersonic velocities, at least temporarily.
Supplying, via injector 8, impure liquid into the supersonic gas stream to produce a standing fluid wave comprising atomized liquid droplets downstream from an exit end of the shockwave nozzle (Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
Wherein the impure liquid contains one or more contaminants (Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
Introducing sufficient heat into the standing fluid wave to cause at least a portion of the atomized liquid droplets to phase change into vapor (Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
Obtaining, via pipe 6, the vapor as an overhead stream separated from an effluent stream comprising at least a portion of the one or more contaminants (Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
Piterkikh is silent to the impure liquid being impure water.
However, it is well-known in the art to spray dry impure water solutions and mixtures. For example, Coulter teaches spray drying fruit juices, salt solutions, milk, etc. (Figures 6 and 9, Column 9 lines 30-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piterkikh in view of Coulter by spray drying an impure water solution or mixture in order to obtain spray dried products (e.g. milk, fruit juice, salt) therefrom.
With regard to claim 2: The supersonic gas stream comprises air and nitrogen (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
With regard to claim 3: The impure liquid is fed as a continuous fluid stream (Piterkikh: Column 6 Lines 18-32). Note: The impure liquid in modified Piterkikh is water (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 4: Heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave from a heat source positioned adjacent to the standing fluid wave (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
With regard to claim 5: The standing fluid wave is produced within a shockwave tube (resonance exhaust tube) 3 operably connected to the exit end of the shockwave nozzle 1 (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
With regard to claim 6: Heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave from the gas stream as it flows through the shockwave tube 3 (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6). In this manner, heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave from a heat source located within the shockwave tube 3.
With regard to claim 7: The impure liquid is supplied into the shockwave tube (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6). Note: The impure liquid in modified Piterkikh is water (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claims 8 and 9: Heat is introduced into the standing fluid wave from a burner flame (produced within the shockwave nozzle 1) projected into the standing fluid wave wherein the burner flame is located adjacent to the exit end of the shockwave nozzle (Piterkikh: Figures 1-5, Columns 5 and 6).
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piterkikh in view of Coulter as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Vega et al. (US 2020/0270157), hereafter referred to as Vega.
With regard to claims 15 and 17-20: Modified Piterkikh is silent to condensing the steam as liquid water; and supplying the liquid water to a parallel process in need thereof, wherein the impure water is obtained from the parallel process, and wherein the parallel process comprises drilling a wellbore or producing a hydrocarbon resource from a wellbore.
However, it is known in the oil extraction art to use direct contact combustion driers to dry well fluids, for example produced water, so as to obtain a solid waste effluent and steam therefrom, wherein the steam is subsequently condensed to attain clean liquid water (see Vega: Abstract, Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0018]-[0030]). Furthermore, it is known in the art to reuse the clean liquid water attained from said processes in well production (paragraph [0030]). As Piterkikh’s method is one of spray drying using a combustion spray dryer (abstract, Columns 5 and 6), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that said method would be suitable for drying well fluids, e.g. produced water, from an oil well to attain steam, which can be subsequently condensed and recycled as liquid water to the well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Piterkikh in view of Vega by using Piterkikh’s spray drying method in a process of drying produced water from an oil well to attain steam and a solid waste effluent, wherein said steam is subsequently condensed and recycled to the well, in order to obtain a process which advantageously recycles produced water, thereby reducing water consumption.
With regard to claim 12: It is understood that the method of modified Piterkikh (modified in view of Vega as in the rejection of claims 15 and 17-20 above) the impure water (produced water) will contain one or more organic contaminants (hydrocarbons) (Vega: paragraph [0024]). At least a portion of said one or more organic contaminates are necessarily pyrolyzed upon introduction of sufficient heat into the standing fluid wave.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is drawn to a spray evaporation system wherein the effluent stream comprises a liquid effluent stream.
The closest prior art of record is Coulter et al. (US 2,887,390) and Piterskikh et al. (US 4,183,145), both individually and in combination with one another.
Piterskikh and Coulter are drawn to spray drying processes which yield a solid effluent stream. Modifying Piterskikh or Coulter to produce a liquid effluent stream would render said references unsuitable for their intended purpose of spray drying, and therefore, would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Anderson et al. (US 8,522,871) is also quite similar to the process of claim 14.
The principles differences between claim 14 and the method of Anderson are that: 1) there is no evidence of atomization in Anderson, and 2) there is no evidence to the use of a supersonic gas stream produced by a shockwave nozzle.
Difference 1 does not represent a patentable distinction at least because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anderson so as to include atomization, e.g. in view of Vega et al. (US 2020/0270157).
On the other hand, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art of record to modify Anderson so as to use a supersonic gas stream produced by a shockwave nozzle while also maintaining a liquid effluent stream.
In view of the above, claim 14 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3618655, US 4226670, US 4226668, US 4265617, US 4695248, US 5136793, US 5651796, US 5881475, and US 10436511 all teach methods similar to that of the Piterkikh reference relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
US 7780152, US 10436511, US 20180320495, US 20210317730, US 20230279755, US 11021940, US 11613975, US 12221870, US 11110370, US 12343658, US 11242772, US 11624299, US 11262022, and US 11802662 all teach methods similar to that of the Vega reference relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772