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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 6-10, 13, 15, and 16 stand withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of record, Constanz discusses flue gas as a source of CO2 for fortification of the stream. While Constanz does not explicitly teach the CO2 content of flue gas employed in the invention, in the experiments run by Constanz (see section starting [Col. 15, EXPERIMENTAL]) on forming precipitates by bubbling CO2-containing gas through water and maintaining high pH, the CO2-containing gas has a content of about 10% CO2 (specifically, 10% CO2 and 90% compressed air; such air might be expected to itself contain less than 1% additional CO2) [Col. 15 lines 33-49; Col. 17 lines 55-67; Col. 18 lines 21-36]. In view of this, employing a gas source which contains about 10% CO2 in carrying out the process of the invention is at minimum obvious over the guidance of Constanz.
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.
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, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al (US 7,931,809 B2) in view of Polizzotti et al (US PGPub 2012/0152546 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Constantz teaches desalination and softening methods [Abs] in which a feed water may be subjected to carbonate precipitation prior to desalination (and desalination reject may further be subject to these same conditions). The source may be any convenient source of salt water e.g. seawater [Col. 3 line 53-Col. 4 line 12]. The methods include raising the pH of a feed water to alkaline levels e.g. up to 10 or higher [Col. 6 lines 18-20] which may be accomplished using a buffer agent (NaOH) [Col. 6 lines 50-54]. The stream is fortified with CO2 from sources such as flue gas sources [Col. 3 lines 46-52] as well as from other sources such as boilers [Col. 4 lines 54-Col. 5 line 29] such that employing any non-condesables already present in the system from thermal desalination, if not already encompassed, would at minimum have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The stream can then be fed to a suitable reactor for precipitation (which may be the same or different reactor from that which facilitates CO2 contact) [Col. 8 line 57-Col. 9 line 14]. This may include precipitation of sulfates when flue gas is used as a CO2 source [Col. 5 lines 14-29]. The precipitate may then be filtered, washed, and dried as needed to facilitate recovery [Col. 9 lines 15-57]. If the taught steps are considered insufficient to anticipate the claimed process e.g. regarding washing sequence, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.C; “In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results);” performing a washing step before separating would have been an obvious engineering choice, particularly as Constantz already suggests that the washing step may enhance removal of e.g. NaCl, such that passing the wash water to desalination (along with the other separated water) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Water which is separated from the precipitate by filtration or the like (and hence would be free of the precipitated divalent ions) is then directed to a desalination step (42) [Fig. 1] which may employ thermal desalination using e.g. flash, multi-effect evaporators, vapor compression, or similar technologies [Col. 4 lines 13-26]. The waste brine produced by desalination may then be returned to the process start for further carbonate compound precipitation, and portions of it may otherwise separated for zero (or near-zero) discharge of depleted brine [Col. 10 lines 55-67], and portions may be discarded as blowdown e.g. by returning to a source or to a tailings pond or the like [Col. 11 lines 1-26].
Constantz teaches as above, but does not explicitly teach that the brine from the desalination reject (which may be processed for zero discharge e.g. to produce halite or in chlor-alkali processes or similar) is processed using a brine crystallizer.
However, Polizzotti teaches a water treatment process [Abs] and teaches that, to achieve zero discharge, the process may employ a brine concentrator and a connected crystallizer to treat blowdown [0026], where such crystallizer may act using a thermal process such as mechanical vapor compression. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Constantz to explicitly include a crystallizer to act on concentrated brine (after desalination) because, as in Polizzotti, this facilitates zero discharge treatment of concentrated brines, and because Constantz already suggests recovering products from reject brine and aiming to achieve zero discharge.
Applicant amended to require that the flue gas includes CO2 at a concentration in the range of 5-15%. Constanz does not explicitly teach the CO2 content of flue gas when employed in the invention; however, in the experiments run by Constanz (see section starting [Col. 15, EXPERIMENTAL]) on forming precipitates by bubbling CO2-containing gas through water and maintaining high pH, the CO2-containing gas has a content of about 10% CO2 (specifically, 10% CO2 and 90% compressed air; such air might be expected to itself contain less than 1% additional CO2) [Col. 15 lines 33-49; Col. 17 lines 55-67; Col. 18 lines 21-36]. In view of this, employing a gas source which contains about 10% CO2 in carrying out the process of the invention is at minimum obvious over the guidance of Constanz.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Constantz teaches that when flue gas is employed and the steps may be staged in a combined manner, the products may include CaCO3, MgCO3 as well as CaSO4 and MgSO4 [Col. 5 lines 14-29].
With respect to claim 3, as above the use of mechanical vapor compression for crystallization of reject brine is at minimum obvious in view of Polizzotti.
With respect to claim 5, Constantz teaches that the desulfurization step may be staged to occur before carbonate precipitation [Col. 5 lines 14-29].
With respect to claim 11, Constantz teaches that the precipitation may occur at elevated temperature, with ranges topping out above 65⁰ C i.e. up to 100⁰ C [Col. 6 lines 1-17]. Further, employment of thermal desalination e.g. flash distillation or the like would similarly imply such elevated temperatures or, at minimum, render them obvious.
With respect to claim 12, as above the carbon dioxide source may include flue gas from industrial plants e.g. power plants.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al in view of Polizzotti et al, further in view of Boryta et al (US PGPub 2004/0005267 A1).
Constantz and Polizzotti teach as above but are silent to specific crystallization steps employing BaCl2, or specific precipitation of BaSO4.
However, Boryta teaches methods of brine processing and teaches that, to facilitate recovery of lithium in brines which contain it, it is desirable to first chemically remove sulfates among other species by treating with barium chloride (BaCl2) and precipitating barium sulfate (BaSO4); lithium can then be recovered via pond or other crystallization process [0127-0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Constantz to provide a step of crystallizing using barium chloride, to precipitate barium sulfate and thereby remove any remaining sulfates and enhance the ability to recover species such as lithium when present, as suggested by Boryta.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777