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 Arguments
The Amendment filed 29JAN2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03NOV2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 29JAN2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding LU, the reference teaches the structural aspects of the claims and is capable of the functions as well (see below). Note that “pressure” is not structure, but a method of use.
Regarding FLEX, please see the attached copy. The examiner apologizes for any inconveniences in unattached documents.
The indicated allowability of claims 6-7,12 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) from the IDS filed on 22MAR2026. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2,10-11,13,16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LU et. al. 2007 “Optimum design of reverse osmosis system under different feed concentration and product specification”.
Regarding claims 1,10-11,16-19, LU teaches a system for reverse osmosis (RO) comprising:
a first RO stage (Fig. 5 # stage 1) with a first feed inlet (LU annotated Fig. 5), a first brine outlet, and a first permeate outlet;
a second RO stage (Fig. 5 # stage 2) with a second feed inlet, a second brine outlet, and a second permeate outlet;
a pressure exchanger (PE; LU annotated Fig. 5) connected between the second brine outlet and the first feed inlet;
wherein the system is capable of setting e.g. a second pressure difference between the second brine outlet and the pressure exchanger based on a value of a first pressure difference between the first brine outlet and the second feed inlet (clearly the feed pressure into the second RO will affect the downstream pressure in the exiting brine).
Note that the claim terms “pressure” and “pressure difference” set forth a method of use of the apparatus. A device claim is limited by positively recited elements or structure capable of specified functions.
Regarding claim 2, LU teaches the pressure exchanger comprises an PE HP inlet (LU annotated Fig. 5) connected to the second brine outlet and an PE HP outlet connected to the first feed inlet.
Regarding claims 13, LU teaches a third RO stage interconnected between the first RO stage and the second RO stage and having a third feed inlet, a third brine outlet, and a third permeate outlet (see system of e.g. Fig. 7 comprising three RO stages interconnected).
LU annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
358
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2,4,10-11,16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KISHIZAWA et. al. 2015 “Low pressure multi-stage RO system developed in “Mega-ton Water System” for large-scaled SWRO plant”.
Regarding claims 1,4,10-11,16-19, KISHIZAWA teaches a system for reverse osmosis (RO) comprising:
a first RO stage (Fig. 14 # 1st stage RO) with a first feed inlet (KISHIZAWA annotated Fig. 14), a first brine outlet, and a first permeate outlet;
a second RO stage (Fig. 14 # 2nd stage RO) with a second feed inlet, a second brine outlet, and a second permeate outlet;
a pressure exchanger (Fig. 14 # ERD, which may be an isobaric energy recovery device; P86/“4.1.2. ERD”) connected between the second brine outlet and the first feed inlet;
wherein the system is capable of setting e.g. a second pressure difference between the second brine outlet and the pressure exchanger based on a value of a first pressure difference between the first brine outlet and the second feed inlet (e.g. via a high recovery turbine or HRT).
Note that the claim terms “pressure” and “pressure difference” set forth a method of use of the apparatus. A device claim is limited by positively recited elements or structure capable of specified functions.
Regarding claim 2, KISHIZAWA teaches the pressure exchanger comprises an PE HP inlet (KISHIZAWA annotated Fig. 14) connected to the second brine outlet and an PE HP outlet connected to the first feed inlet.
KISHIZAWA annotated Fig. 14
PNG
media_image2.png
500
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU et. al. 2007 “Optimum design of reverse osmosis system under different feed concentration and product specification” in view of FLEX Isobaric Energy Recovery Device 2017 (“FLEX”).
Regarding claims 4-5, LU is silent as to the details of the pressure exchanger (PE). However, FLEX teaches a pressure exchanger, a rotary isobaric energy recovery device, is the most efficient device of its type by driving down the cost of desalination through substantially reducing operating costs and capital expenditures (first page; last page).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the PE of LU to be a rotary isobaric PE as taught by FLEX in order to provide a working, efficient, and cost-effective PE. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reverse osmosis systems. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIZAWA et. al. 2015 “Low pressure multi-stage RO system developed in “Mega-ton Water System” for large-scaled SWRO plant” in view of FLEX Isobaric Energy Recovery Device 2017 (“FLEX”).
Regarding claim 5, KISHIZAWA teaches an isobaric ERD (PE), but is silent as to a rotary isobaric ERD. However, FLEX teaches a pressure exchanger, a rotary isobaric energy recovery device, is the most efficient device of its type by driving down the cost of desalination through substantially reducing operating costs and capital expenditures (first page; last page).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the PE of KISHIZAWA to be a rotary isobaric PE as taught by FLEX in order to provide a working, efficient, and cost-effective PE. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reverse osmosis systems. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIZAWA et. al. 2015 “Low pressure multi-stage RO system developed in “Mega-ton Water System” for large-scaled SWRO plant” in view of BRADLEY (US 3637081).
Regarding claims 6-7, KISHIZAWA teaches a high recovery turbine (Fig. 14 #HRT), but does not teach a hydraulic motor. However, BRADLEY teaches a liquid treatment system (title, Figs.). including:
an RO stage (Fig. 1 #18) with a feed inlet (Fig. 1 #15), a brine outlet (Fig. 1 #25), and a permeate outlet (Fig. 1 #20);
a brine pressure recovery device comprising:
a hydraulic motor (Fig. 1 #27) ; and,
an induction motor (Fig. 1 #29); and,
wherein the brine pressure recovery device is connected to a feed pump (Fig. 1 #12).
BRADLEY teaches that turbines have a disadvantage including control of the reject flow rate and scale (C2/L51-53), while hydraulic systems provide improved stability and low maintenance (C2/L72-C3/L4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HRT of KISHIZAWA to be a hydraulic system with a hydraulic motor and induction motor as taught by BRADLEY in order to provide improved stability and low maintenance. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reverse osmosis systems. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that the claim terms “pressure” and “pressure difference” set forth a method of use of the apparatus. A device claim is limited by positively recited elements or structure capable of specified functions.
Claim(s) 7,12,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIZAWA et. al. 2015 “Low pressure multi-stage RO system developed in “Mega-ton Water System” for large-scaled SWRO plant” in view of BRADLEY (US 3637081) and OKELJAS (US 9695064).
Regarding claims 7,12,20 KISHIZAWA’s modified device does not teach a hydraulic pump. However, OKELJAS teaches a reverse osmosis system with energy recovery devices (title, Figs.). including:
a first RO stage (Fig. 4 #24) with a feed inlet (Fig. 4 #18), a brine outlet (Fig. 4 #16), and a permeate outlet (Fig. 4 #14);
a second RO stage (Fig. 4 #52) with a feed inlet (line out of pump portion #154), a brine outlet (Fig. 4 #56), and a permeate outlet (Fig. 4 #54);
a brine pressure recovery device comprising:
a hydraulic pump (Fig. 4 #154); and,
a turbine (Fig. 4 #156) mechanically coupled to the pump via a shaft (Fig. 4 #158).
OKELJAS teaches that the hydraulic pump may consume less energy while increasing the pressure of the influent (C2/L40-52).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of KISHIZAWA to including a hydraulic pump as taught by OKELJAS in order to consume less energy while increasing the pressure of the influent. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of reverse osmosis systems. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LU et. al. 2011 “The integration of water vane pump and hydraulic vane motor for a small desalination system” discloses a combination of a hydraulic motor and a pump, which may be used to reduce flow pulsation and noise while in a compact simple configuration while recovering energy from a high pressure concentrate flow.
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights