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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitation “brine salt crystal collector” in Claim 1 is not mentioned anywhere in the Specification.
None of the limitations in Claims 2, 4-11 & 13-15 are mentioned anywhere in the Specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the salt water input” should be rewritten as “the saltwater input” to better reflect the previous recitations of this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 14, 15 and any of their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a sheer”. It is not clear what “a sheer” is meant to convey in this context in relation to the membrane, based on the commonly known definitions of “sheer”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a radial sheer”. It is not clear what “sheer” is meant to convey in this context in relation to the membrane, based on the commonly known definitions of “sheer”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a concentric annular sheer”. It is not clear what “sheer” is meant to convey in this context in relation to the membrane, based on the commonly known definitions of “sheer”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the seawater input flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 7, 8 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 7 & 8, Wallace discloses a desalination device, (See Figure 15 & 16, See paragraph [0024], [00162], [00164]), comprising: a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane comprising a solute side and a solvent side, (RO 618 with permeate side/concentrate side defined by Desalinated Water 106, Concentrate Stream 620, See Figure 16, See paragraph [00165]): a steam turbine configured to superheat a saltwater input and create a pressurized and superheated saltwater output on the solute side of the RO membrane, (Pump/Turbine Generator 710a/b/c, See Figure 17, See paragraph [00169]): and a brine salt crystal collector configured to collect a brine output from the solute side of the RO membrane into the shape of salt crystals, (See paragraph [00162] & [00165]).
Wallace does not disclose vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane.
Du Toit discloses vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane, (See paragraphs [0082], [0088], Du Toit; or See Figure 18, See paragraphs [00172], [00173], Du Toit). Additional features of this disclosure are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of Wallace by incorporating vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane as in Du Toit in order to “fit almost any specification including….mechanical strength…and acoustical resistance”, (See paragraph [0082], Du Toit), and have “little flexibility” so that it has “enhanced concentrate flow and potential energy recovery”, (See paragraph [0078], Du Toit).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The desalination device of claim 1, further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from the saltwater input, (NF 612, See Figure 16, See paragraph [00164], Wallace).
Claim 3: The desalination device of claim 1. further comprising a freshwater output from the solvent side of the RO membrane, (Desalinated Water 106, See Figure 16, See paragraph [00165], Wallace).
Claim 4: The desalination device of claim 1. further comprising a post treatment compartment for treating a fresh water solvent in terms of mineralization and ph (potential of hydrogen), (Brine Stream 634 added back to Desalinated Water 106 for remineralization, See paragraph [00165], Wallace).
Claim 7: The desalination device of claim 1. wherein the vanes are radial vanes configured to strengthen a radial sheer of the RO membrane, (See paragraphs [0078], [0082], [0088], Du Toit).
Claim 8: The desalination device of claim 1,wherein the vanes are concentric annular vanes configured to strengthen a concentric annular sheer of the RO membrane, (See Figure 18, See paragraphs [00172], [00173], Du Toit).
Claim 10: The desalination device of claim 1,wherein the brine salt crystal collector comprises a salt crystal seed adjacent the RO membrane and on the solute side thereof, (See paragraph [00100]; 103 combo).
Claim 5, 6 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Palanisamy, (US 2014/0208752).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits for throttling the steam turbine.
Palanisamy discloses further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits, (See paragraph [0050], [0109], Palanisamy), for throttling the steam turbine, (See paragraph [0109], [0120], Palanisamy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits for throttling the steam turbine as in Palanisamy in order to allow “the steam turbine to be operated at steady load conditions while the thermal load can fluctuate…which should suffice to meet the needs”, (See paragraph [0141], Palanisamy).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits configured to control a fluid flow through the device.
Palanisamy discloses further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits, (See paragraph [0050], [0109], Palanisamy), configured to control a fluid flow through the device, (See paragraph [0109], Palanisamy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits configured to control a fluid flow through the device as in Palanisamy in order to “regulate the flow…in response to a level deviation [that] can be advantageously applied”, (See paragraph [0138], Palanisamy).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, with a pressure differential across the RO membrane and a seawater input flow and a freshwater output flow, (See paragraph [00129], Wallace), but does not disclose further comprising a control unit configured to monitor and control a pressure differential by controlling the input flow and the output flow.
Palanisamy discloses further comprising control unit configured to monitor and control a pressure differential by controlling the input flow and the output flow, (See paragraph [0132], Palanisamy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating control unit configured to monitor and control a pressure differential by controlling the input flow and the output flow as in Palanisamy in order to “selectively increase or decrease the flow rate…in response to a positive or negative pressure deviation from a predetermined set-point pressure value”, (See paragraph [0132], Palanisamy).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Scapini et al., (“Scapini”, US 11,619,213).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine.
Scapini discloses further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine, (See column 18, lines 16-32, Scapini).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine as in Scapini to “boost or enhance the temperature…which is used to superheat the steam…such that only a small portion of the overall system need be heated to a high temperature”, and “efficiently operate a steam turbine”, (See column 2, lines 65-66, Scapini).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Enis et al., (“Enis”, US 10,167,205).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals.
Enis discloses further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals, (See column 2, lines 52-67, column 3, lines 1-3, Enis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals as in Enis to have “the advantage of achieving very high concentration factors with a large reduction in waste volume” and “recover valuable solids without corrosion” and “has lower power consumption than evaporation”, (See column 2, lines 56-61, Enis).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Tanabe et al., (“Tanabe”, US 5,833,846).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane.
Tanabe discloses further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane, (Membrane Separation Unit 110, See column 3, lines 7-31, Tanabe)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane as in Tanabe in order to “form a closed loop so that high-purity water may be constantly circulating there until drawn into any point of use in order to protect it against contamination by bacteria that occurs when water becomes stagnant”, (See column 3, lines 28-31, Tanabe).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, (WO 2021/226275), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Tavor et al., (“Tavor”, US 2023/0271854).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Wallace discloses the desalination device of claim 1, further comprising a positive pressure on both the solute and the solvent sides of the RO membrane, (See paragraph [00129], Wallace), but does not disclose a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute).
Tavor discloses a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute), (See Abstract, See paragraph [0015], Tavor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Wallace by incorporating a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute) as in Tavor in order to provide “for a much more flexible and responsive process and system than those powered by electricity”, (See paragraph [0019], Tavor).
Claim(s) 1-3 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367).
Regarding Claims 1-3 & 9, Conger discloses a desalination device, (See Abstract), comprising: a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane comprising a solute side and a solvent side, (RO System 30 and/or RO System 40, See Figure 1A, See column 4, lines 7-41): a steam turbine configured to superheat a saltwater input and create a pressurized and superheated saltwater output on the solute side of the RO membrane, (Turbine/Pump 26 and/or 36, See Figure 1A, See column 3, lines 66-68, column 4, lines 1-13, lines 41-56): and a brine salt crystal collector configured to collect a brine output from the solute side of the RO membrane into the shape of salt crystals, (Crystallizer 62, 70, See Figure 6, See column 6, lines 3-15).
Conger does not disclose vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane.
Du Toit discloses vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane, (See paragraphs [0082], [0088], Du Toit; or See Figure 18, See paragraphs [00172], [00173], Du Toit). Additional features of this disclosure are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of Conger by incorporating vanes configured to strengthen a sheer of the RO membrane as in Du Toit in order to “fit almost any specification including….mechanical strength…and acoustical resistance”, (See paragraph [0082], Du Toit), and have “little flexibility” so that it has “enhanced concentrate flow and potential energy recovery”, (See paragraph [0078], Du Toit).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The desalination device of claim 1, further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from the saltwater input, (Pretreatment Unit 16, See Figure 1A, See column 3, lines 40-50, Conger).
Claim 3: The desalination device of claim 1, further comprising a freshwater output from the solvent side of the RO membrane, (RO System 30/40 each with sub membrane units and permeators, See Figure 1A, See column 4, lines 16-24, Conger).
Claim 9: The desalination device of claim 1. wherein the steam turbine is disposed below the RO membrane and on the solute side thereof, (Turbine 36 placed below RO System 30, See Figure 1A, See column 4, lines 41-50, Conger).
Claim 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Palanisamy, (US 2014/0208752).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits for throttling the steam turbine.
Palanisamy discloses further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits, (See paragraph [0050], [0109], Palanisamy), for throttling the steam turbine, (See paragraph [0109], [0120], Palanisamy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits for throttling the steam turbine as in Palanisamy in order to allow “the steam turbine to be operated at steady load conditions while the thermal load can fluctuate…which should suffice to meet the needs”, (See paragraph [0141], Palanisamy).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits configured to control a fluid flow through the device.
Palanisamy discloses further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits, (See paragraph [0050], [0109], Palanisamy), configured to control a fluid flow through the device, (See paragraph [0109], Palanisamy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating further comprising a control unit comprising electromechanical circuits configured to control a fluid flow through the device as in Palanisamy in order to “regulate the flow…in response to a level deviation [that] can be advantageously applied”, (See paragraph [0138], Palanisamy).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Scapini et al., (“Scapini”, US 11,619,213).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine.
Scapini discloses further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine, (See column 18, lines 16-32, Scapini).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating further comprising heating coils configured to superheat the salt water input prior to a contact with the steam turbine as in Scapini to “boost or enhance the temperature…which is used to superheat the steam…such that only a small portion of the overall system need be heated to a high temperature”, and “efficiently operate a steam turbine”, (See column 2, lines 65-66, Scapini).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Enis et al., (“Enis”, US 10,167,205).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals.
Enis discloses further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals, (See column 2, lines 52-67, column 3, lines 1-3, Enis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating further comprising a brine freezer configured to freeze a brine output on the solvent side of the RO membrane into the salt crystals as in Enis to have “the advantage of achieving very high concentration factors with a large reduction in waste volume” and “recover valuable solids without corrosion” and “has lower power consumption than evaporation”, (See column 2, lines 56-61, Enis).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Tanabe et al., (“Tanabe”, US 5,833,846).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane.
Tanabe discloses further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane, (Membrane Separation Unit 110, See column 3, lines 7-31, Tanabe)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating further comprising a filter configured to separate debris and impurities from a post treatment of a fresh water solvent output of the RO membrane as in Tanabe in order to “form a closed loop so that high-purity water may be constantly circulating there until drawn into any point of use in order to protect it against contamination by bacteria that occurs when water becomes stagnant”, (See column 3, lines 28-31, Tanabe).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger, (US 4,083,781), in view of Du Toit, (WO 2019/161367), in further view of Tavor et al., (“Tavor”, US 2023/0271854).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Conger discloses the desalination device of claim 1, further comprising a positive pressure on both the solute and the solvent sides of the RO membrane, (See paragraph [00129], Wallace), but does not disclose a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute).
Tavor discloses a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute), (See Abstract, See paragraph [0015], Tavor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the desalination device of modified Conger by incorporating a positive pressure based on the steam turbine RPM (revolutions per minute) as in Tavor in order to provide “for a much more flexible and responsive process and system than those powered by electricity”, (See paragraph [0019], Tavor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779