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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 7, 11-13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 2, “the VOC-water” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitations of “VOC-free water” in claim 1, and
in the initial clause, “a liquid and solids portion” is ambiguous as to whether such clause is reciting only one portion or both a liquids portion and a solids portion, thus “the liquid portion” in the “directing” clause lacks antecedent basis
In claim 7, “to stabilize soluble metals” is vague as to whether such metals are a constituent of the VOC-free water” or are separate from the water.
In claim 11, “below a water level thereof” is vague and indefinite since such water level is a transient parameter and does not define a structural limitation of the evaporation stage unit of the system.
In claim 13, “profile is one of…and undulating profile” is ambiguous as to whether the selected profile is necessarily “undulating”, (amending the claim to read “…or undulating profile” is suggested).
In claim 15, it is unclear whether the “solids collection stage” is a positively recited system component, or instead is merely an intended destination of directing of solids portion from the decanting stage.
In claim 19, “the slurry created” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitations of “evaporation vessel…producing a slurry”…vessels…producing slurry”.
In claim 20, absence of the term “and” between “exhaust line;” and “a blower” makes the claim ambiguous as to whether the blower is the last in the series of recited system components, and
“the evaporation change” lacks antecedent basis being inconsistent with recitations of “evaporation stage”.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 20, “an waste heat source” is grammatically incorrect, “…a waste heat source…” is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following structural features described as reference characters in the specification , including: character “2” described in paragraph 0037, character “44” in paragraph [0056], “146” in [0058], “42a” in [0059-0060], and “42b” in [0059]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification is inconsistent in that reference character . Reference characters “40” and “40b” are not mentioned in the Specification, and include the inconsistency of referring to the stripping tower as represented by reference character “20” in [0036] and as represented by reference character “2” in [0037].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication DE_2409720A1 and the accompanying Escapenet Full English translation thereof (publication ‘720) in view of Levin PGPUBS Document US 2006/0196358 (Levin). Paragraph numbers of the respective Specifications of the Escapenet translation of publication and the PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, publication ‘720 discloses or suggests: A process for the treatment of feed water, comprising:
providing the feed water and a stripping gas to a stripper unit 8, wherein the feed water is separated into volatile contaminants and volatile-contaminant-free water ([0001 and 0006] regarding treatment of hot wastewater contaminated with gaseous substances, and first freeing water to be evaporated from such contaminants in a stripper and [0008] re feeding a portion of water to stripper 8 through line 7 in which air dissolves gaseous components which are removed from the water through line 10 as “combustion air);
incinerating the volatile contaminants at a heating stage and producing a heated gas ([0006] re processing of such gaseous components in an incinerator and figure 1 and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of [0008] re such combustion air being supplied to a combustion process, i.e. “incineration”, occurring in burner 22):
directing the volatile contaminant-free water from the stripper unit to an evaporation stage (figure 1 and [0001, 0006 and 0008] re the water treated by stripping being circulated and directed through line 20 to an evaporator 21);
directing the heated gas to the evaporation stage for evaporating the volatile contaminant-free water and producing an exhaust gas
(figure 1 and 3rd paragraph of [0008 beginning “A portion of the circulating water…” and 4th paragraph of [0008 beginning “In addition to the stripping air” re a portion of a gas quantity escaping from line 6 during an expansion being supplied to the submerged burner 22 or another burner of the evaporator 21, which heats the water being treated in the evaporator,
the 3rd paragraph of [0008], together with figure 1, disclosing that the air coming from line 10 of the stripper unit is combusted and burned at high temperatures (i.e. “incinerated”), to exhaust a gas stream through line 25;
also see depiction of gas bubbles from a discharge line extending downward into the evaporator 21 from the combustion or incineration-effecting burner 22 ); and,
venting at least a portion of the exhaust gas (figure 1 and [0008] re combustion gases being released into the open at 25).
Claim 1 firstly differs from ‘720 by requiring that the volatile contaminants comprise volatile organic contaminants or “VOCS”.
Levin teaches destruction of volatile organic and inorganic contaminants, thus including “VOCs” by a combination of stripping in stripping “columns”, i.e. “towers”, and heat treatment steps including incineration, thermo-catalytic oxidation and other treatment stages performed at elevated temperature (Abstract, [0008], [0013-0017], and [0032-0034]).
Levin teaches that volatile organic compounds present a major contributor to overall pollution in wastewater generally, and particularly for many branches of industry [0003-0004].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have utilized or applied the process of ‘720 including steps of stripping and heat treatment or evaporation, to include removal or destruction of volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), as taught by Levin, since such volatile organic compounds present a major contributor to overall pollution in wastewater generally, and particularly for many branches of industry.
Levin teaches that the design of the stripping units as columns, i.e. towers, which are compactly arranged and integral with other heat treatment stages
Claim 1 also differs from ‘720 by requiring that the stripper unit comprises a stripper tower.
Again, Levin teaches destruction of volatile organic and inorganic contaminants, thus including “VOCs” by a combination of stripping in stripping “columns”, i.e. “towers”, and heat treatment steps including incineration, thermo-catalytic oxidation and other treatment stages performed at elevated temperature (Abstract, [0008], [0013-0017], and [0032-0034]).
Levin suggests that such column or “tower” form of stripping units can be readily configured to fit into a compact system in which fluid streams are utilized in heat exchange and recirculation relationship and can be designed as one combined module (figures 1-3, [0059] and [0072]).
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have utilized a stripper unit in the form of a column or tower in the process of ‘720, as also taught by Levin, such that the system can be readily configured to fit into a compact system in which fluid streams are utilized in heat exchange and recirculation relationship and which can be designed as one combined module.
Publication ‘720, in combination with Levin, further teaches:
for claim 2, wherein the evaporating of the volatile contaminant-free or VOC-water produces a slurry comprising a liquid and solids portion, further comprising
directing the slurry to a decanting stage for separating the liquid portion and solids portion (2nd paragraph of [0008] re treatment of liquid having remaining solid components in a separator 11 such as a centrifuge and 3rd paragraph of [0008] re removing foreign matter or solid matter from the evaporator in sieve or decanter 24]) ; and
directing the liquid portion back to the evaporation stage (evident from the flow arrows entering and exiting decanter device 24 illustrated in figure 1); and,
for claim 3, the process further comprising bringing the heated gas and the volatile contaminant-free or VOC-free water into direct contact (figure 1 and 3rd and 4th paragraphs of [0008] re the immersed burner and another burner releasing gas into contact with such water in the evaporator).
Levin further teaches:
for claim 5, to modify the process to further comprise directing a portion of the heated gas to the stripper tower to make up at least a portion of the stripper gas (figures 1-3 and [0014] regarding fans or blowers circulating gaseous medium through the system through connecting branches); and,
for claim 6, to modify the process to further comprise directing at least a portion of the exhaust gas from the evaporation stage to the stripper tower to make up at least a portion of the stripping gas (again see (figures 1-3 and [0014] regarding fans or blowers circulating gaseous medium through the system); and,
for claim 8, the process further comprising creating a vacuum in the evaporator stage to draw in the heated gases (see figures 1-3 and [0014] and [0015] regarding fans or blowers circulating gaseous medium through the system, or as in [0015] “to blow out the system”, hence inherently creating a vacuum); and,
Publication ‘720, in combination with Levin, further teaches:
for claim 9, wherein the step of directing the volatile contaminant-free or VOC-free water from the stripper tower to the evaporation stage comprises directing the volatile contaminant-free or VOC- free water to two or more evaporation vessels [0009 re “multi-stage evaporators”].
For independent claim 10, publication ‘720 discloses: A water treatment system for the treatment of feed water, comprising:
a stripper unit 8 configured to receive the feed water 7 and a stripping gas 9 for stripping volatile contaminants from the feed water and separating the feed water into volatile contaminants and volatile-contaminant-free water ([0001 and 0006] regarding treatment of hot wastewater contaminated with gaseous substances, and first freeing water to be evaporated from such contaminants in a stripper and [0008] re feeding a portion of water to stripper 8 through line 7 in which air dissolves gaseous components which are removed from the water through line 10 as “combustion air);
a heating stage 22 configured to receive and incinerate the volatile contaminants, creating a heated gas ([0006] re processing of such gaseous components in an incinerator and figure 1 and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of [0008] re such combustion air being supplied to a combustion process, i.e. “incineration”, occurring in burner 22); and
an evaporation stage 21 configured to receive the volatile contaminant-free water from the stripper tower and the heated gas from the heating stage (figure 1 and [0001, 0006 and 0008] re the water treated by stripping being circulated and directed through line 20 to an evaporator 21), and
vent an exhaust gas (the 3rd paragraph of [0008], together with figure 1, disclosing that the air coming from line 10 of the stripper unit is combusted and burned at high temperatures (i.e. “incinerated”), to exhaust a gas stream through line 25).
Claim 10 firstly differs from ‘720 by requiring that the volatile contaminants comprise volatile organic contaminants or “VOCS”.
Levin teaches destruction of volatile organic and inorganic contaminants, thus including “VOCs” by a combination of stripping in stripping “columns”, i.e. “towers”, and heat treatment steps including incineration, thermo-catalytic oxidation and other treatment stages performed at elevated temperature (Abstract, [0008], [0013-0017], and [0032-0034]).
Levin teaches that volatile organic compounds present a major contributor to overall pollution in wastewater generally, and particularly for many branches of industry [0003-0004].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have utilized or applied the system of ‘720 including steps of stripping and heat treatment or evaporation, to include removal or destruction of volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), as taught by Levin, since such volatile organic compounds present a major contributor to overall pollution in wastewater generally, and particularly for many branches of industry.
Claim 10 also differs from ‘720 by requiring that the stripper unit comprises a stripper tower.
Levin teaches Levin teaches destruction of volatile organic and inorganic contaminants, thus including “VOCs” by a combination of stripping in stripping “columns”, i.e. “towers”, and heat treatment steps including incineration, thermo-catalytic oxidation and other treatment stages performed at elevated temperature (Abstract, [0008], [0013-0017], and [0032-0034]).
Levin suggests that such column or “tower” form of stripping units can be readily configured to fit into a compact system in which fluid streams are utilized in heat exchange and recirculation relationship and can be designed as one combined module (figures 1-3, [0059] and [0072]).
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have utilized a stripper unit in the form of a column or tower in the system of ‘720, as also taught by Levin, such that the system can be readily configured to fit into a compact system in which fluid streams are utilized in heat exchange and recirculation relationship and which can be designed as one combined module.
Publication ‘720, in combination with Levin, further teaches:
for claim 11, the system further comprising a gas conduit extending from the heating stage into the evaporation stage and terminating below a water level thereof for directing heated gas thereto (see figure 1 and [0008] regarding a gas conduit extending from a heating stage of burner 22 into an evaporation stage unit and terminating below a water level thereof for directing gas );
for claim 14, the system further comprising a decanting stage 24 configured to receive a slurry created in the evaporation stage and separate the slurry into a liquid portion and a solids portion (3rd and 4th paragraphs of [0008] re foreign, solid matter being removed from water removed from the evaporator); and,
for claim 15, wherein the decanting stage is configured to direct at least a portion of the liquid portion to the evaporation stage and direct the solids portion to a solids collection stage (evident from the flow arrows between decanting stage 24 and evaporation stage 21 shown in figure 1 regarding directing of liquid portion and 3rd and 4th paragraphs of [0008] regarding removal of solid matter, inherently requiring a downstream solids-collection location and mechanism).
Levin further teaches or suggests for claim 16, the system further comprising a recirculation line extending between the evaporation stage and the stripper tower for directing exhaust gases from the evaporation stage to the stripper tower to make up at least a portion of the stripping gas (figures 1-3, [0014], [0064] and [0075] regarding fans or blowers circulating gaseous medium throughout the system through connecting branches).
For claim 17, both publication ‘720 and Levin are silent regarding specific heating stage or incineration temperatures, wherein the heating stage is configured to incinerate the volatile contaminants or VOCs at about 800°C or greater, however publication ‘720 suggests such high temperatures by (disclosure of the feed stream entering the system and specifically the stripper unit, upstream of the evaporation vessel at almost 1000 degrees C [0007-0008] and disclosure in the 3rd paragraph of [0008] of “higher temperatures” at the submerged burner 22 which provides incineration).
The specific operating temperatures of the heating stage and of incineration are deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have optimized by routine experimentation. The MPEP at Sections 2144.04, part IV and 2145, parts I and II cite Case Law which has established legal precedence regarding insufficiency of patentably distinguishing, based on changes in specific size, value, ratio or ranges of parameters, particularly where the prior art teaches values which are similar to, or overlap those claimed, absent a finding of unexpected results.
In addition, operating temperatures of the heating stage or incinerator do not constitute a positively recited, definitive structural feature of the claimed system.
Thus, it would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have optimized the operating temperature of the heating stage or incinerator of publication ‘720, so as to destroy by incineration, all of whatever particular contaminants are present in the particular source of the contaminated feed water to the system.
Publication ‘720 further discloses or suggests:
for claim 18, wherein the evaporation stage comprises two or more evaporation vessels [0009 re evaporation taking place in “multi-stage evaporators”,
each of the evaporation vessels receiving heated gases from the heating stage, a first evaporation vessel of the two or more evaporation vessels receiving the hot gases and volatile contaminant-free or VOC-free water and producing a slurry, and
each subsequent vessel of the two or more evaporation vessels receiving the hot gases and the slurry of a prior evaporation vessel as a subsequent feed stream and producing slurry and exhaust gases (all inherent from disclosure of the evaporators operative to remove gaseous dissolved substances in [0019] and disclosure of a mixture of water and solid matter being present in a first evaporator in the 3rd paragraph of [0018], thus subsequent evaporators of the multi-stage evaporator also receiving a fluid mixture of gases, water and slurry from previous stage(s) of evaporator) ; and,
for claim 19, the system further comprising a decanter stage configured to receive the slurry created in one or more of the two or more evaporation vessels, and
separate the slurry into a liquid portion and a solids portion (both limitations evident in (2nd paragraph of [0008] re treatment of liquid having remaining solid components in a separator 11 such as a centrifuge and 3rd paragraph of [0008] re removing foreign matter or solid matter from the evaporator in sieve or decanter 24]), and also,
direct the liquid portion back to the evaporation stage, and
direct the solids portion to a solids collection stage (the latter two limitations evident from the flow arrows between decanting stage 24 and evaporation stage 21 shown in figure 1 regarding directing of liquid portion and 3rd and 4th paragraphs of [0008] regarding removal of solid matter, inherently requiring a downstream solids-collection location and mechanism).
Claims 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication DE_2409720A1 and the accompanying Escapenet Full English translation thereof (publication ‘720) in view of Levin PGPUBS Document US 2006/0196358 (Levin), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 and 14-19 above, and further in view of Shepherd patent 5,032,230. Paragraph numbers of the respective Specifications of the Escapenet full English translation of publication and the PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 4 further differs from publication ‘720 in combination with Levin by requiring the process of claim 3, further comprising directing the heated gas through a plurality of openings of a distributor and around a band of the distributor to disperse the hot gas into bubbles in the VOC-free water.
Shepherd teaches a system for evaporating volatile hydrocarbons or other contaminants (Abstract) in which bubbles of gases are released into a body of water 26 being treated in evaporator 12, through a distributor 24, having a plurality of openings 25 around the periphery, perimeter or outer band of the distributor (all shown in figure 3 and discussed at column 4, lines 17-54 regarding effect of release of the gas bubbles, and column 6, line 59-column 7, line 16).
Shepherd teaches at column 7, lines 1-15 that such form of distributor effects maximum efficient distribution of the gas throughout a solution being treated, and maximum contact of the bubbles with the liquid being treated.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment arts to have further modified the process disclosed by publication ‘720, by providing a distributor configured for directing heated gas through a plurality of openings around a periphery or band of the distributor, and directing the heated gas as claimed, or by modifying the disclosed distributor to have such configuration, so as to direct the heated gas as claimed, as taught by Shepherd, in order to effect maximum efficient distribution of the gas throughout a solution being treated, and maximum contact of the bubbles with the liquid being treated.
Claim 12 further differs from publication ‘720 in combination with Levin by requiring a gas conduit of the system to comprise a distributor portion comprising
a conical portion; and
a band portion extending from the conical portion;
wherein at least the conical portion comprises a plurality of openings, and
wherein the band portion comprises a circumferential lip having a profile.
Shepherd teaches a system for evaporating volatile hydrocarbons or other contaminants (Abstract) in which bubbles of gases 24 are released into a body of water 26 being treated in evaporator 12, through a distributor, having a plurality of openings 25 around the periphery, perimeter or outer band of the distributor (all shown in figure 3 and discussed at column 4, lines 17-54 regarding effect of release of the gas bubbles, and column 6, line 59-column 7, line 16).
The distributor 22 of Shepherd as shown in figure 3 constitutes a cylindrical section 23, opening into a conical section 24 having a plurality of openings 25 and ending in a circumferential bottom solid band portion, as claimed.
Shepherd teaches at column 7, lines 1-15 that such form of distributor effects maximum efficient distribution of the gas throughout a solution being treated, and maximum contact of the bubbles with the liquid being treated.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment arts to have further modified the system disclosed by publication ‘720, by providing a distributor configured for directing heated gas through a plurality of openings around a periphery of a conical section of a distributor having a conical section ending in a band of the distributor, and directing the heated gas as claimed, or by modifying the disclosed distributor to have such configuration, so as to direct the heated gas as claimed, as taught by Shepherd, in order to effect maximum efficient distribution of the gas throughout a solution being treated, and maximum contact of the bubbles with the liquid being treated.
For claim 13, Shepherd further suggests wherein such distributor band portion profile is one of an irregular, regular, sawtooth, castellated, corrugated, serrated, and undulating profile (figure 3 illustrating such distributor band portion profile forming a regular circular or cylindrical profile).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication DE_2409720A1 and the accompanying Escapenet Full English translation thereof (publication ‘720) in view of Levin PGPUBS Document US 2006/0196358 (Levin), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-11 and 14-19 above, and further in view of patent publication WO 2010017652 and the accompanying English translation thereof (publication ‘652). Paragraph numbers of the respective Specifications of the Escapenet full English translation of publication, the translation of ‘652, and the PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Regarding claim 7, ‘720 also discloses in the 3rd paragraph of [0008] subsequently treating the contaminant-free or VOC-free water, removed from the evaporator, with lime or other substances.
Claim 7 further differs however by requiring wherein the volatile contaminant-free or VOC-free water is treated with a sulfate to stabilize soluble metals.
Publication ‘652 discloses a process and system for removing a plurality of metal contaminants from water by treating the water with ammonium sulfate to stabilize the metals so that they become insoluble and can be more easily separated out from the water by precipitation (Abstract and Description of the translation).
The publication teaches that such treatment results in removal and stabilization of arsenic and heavy metals.
Thus, it would have been additionally obvious to have also modified the process of publication ‘720, by such treatment including addition of sulfate, as taught by publication ‘652, so as to more easily stabilize, separate and remove arsenic and heavy metals from the water being treated.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication DE_2409720A1 and the accompanying Escapenet Full English translation thereof (publication ‘720) in view of Levin PGPUBS Document US 2006/0196358 (Levin), and Shepherd patent 5,032,230. Paragraph numbers of the respective Specifications of the Escapenet translation of publication and the PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 20, publication ’720 discloses
A water treatment system for the treatment of feed water ([0001 and 0006] regarding treatment of hot wastewater contaminated with gaseous substances), comprising:
a waste heat source generating heated gas, and first freeing water to be evaporated from such contaminants in a stripper and [0008] re feeding a portion of water to a source of waste heat in the form of a stripper 8 through line 7 in which air dissolves gaseous components which are removed from the water through line 10 as “combustion air);;
an evaporation stage configured to receive the feed water and the heated gas from the waste heat source and vent an exhaust gas through an exhaust line (figure 1 and [0001, 0006 and 0008] re the water treated by stripping being circulated and directed through line 20 to an evaporator 21, with gas being exhausted through line 25); and,
Claim 20 differs from publication ‘720 by requiring the exhaust line being configured for creating a negative pressure in the evaporation change and drawing heated gas from the waste heat source through the evaporation stage and out the exhaust line; and
a blower located on the exhaust line.
Levin teaches Levin teaches Levin teaches destruction of volatile organic and inorganic contaminants, thus including “VOCs” by a combination of stripping in stripping “columns”, i.e. “towers”, and heat treatment steps including incineration, thermo-catalytic oxidation and other treatment stages performed at elevated temperature (Abstract, [0008], [0013-0017], and [0032-0034]).
Levin suggests that such column or “tower” form of stripping units can be readily configured to fit into a compact system in which fluid streams are utilized in heat exchange and recirculation relationship and can be designed as one combined module (figures 1-3, [0059] and [0072]).
Levin also teaches see figures 1-3 and [0014] and [0015] regarding fans or blowers circulating gaseous medium through the system, or as in [0015] “to blow out the system”, hence inherently creating a vacuum.
Also, Shepherd teaches a system for evaporating volatile hydrocarbons or other contaminants from contaminated water (Abstract) in which the volatile contaminants are removed through efficient vaporization through a vacuum draft combustion chamber or evaporator , with gases withdrawn through a discharge pipe into a vacuum pump (also see column 5, lines 9-27).
Shepherd teaches that such discharge pipe, or “exhaust pipe” and vacuum pump or “blower” effects greater heating efficiency and vaporization efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the system of publication ‘720 by providing a vacuum pump in the form of a blower on an exhaust line from the evaporator, as cumulatively taught by Levin and Shepherd, in order to effect efficient vaporization, greater heating efficiency and vaporization efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited regarding water treatment evaporators using various forms of gas distributors, and forms of generating vacuum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Magali Slawski, of Technology Center Unit 1778, can reached at 571-270-3960.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
10/09 /2025
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773