DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed June 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection set forth in the office action filed April 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Wei et al., US 2019/0054421 (Wei, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a method of cleaning feed water (see “brine”, abstract, fig. 7) comprising:
Delivering feed water (see “pretreated brine is then split”, ¶ 0071) to one of at least two feed chambers (top/bottom of REF 720);
Monitoring a concentration of feed water in one of at least two feed chambers (see specified brine concentrations in fig. 7, ¶ 0071);
Delivering feed water to a first osmotically assisted reverse osmosis membrane (REF 720, ¶ 0071) to create a first concentrated feed stream (upper stream) and an intermediate water stream (lower stream);
Passing the intermediate water stream to a second reverse osmosis membrane (REF 725, ¶ 0071) to create a second concentrated feed stream (return stream) and a product water stream (REF 730, see “D.I. H2O”).
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses a method further comprising returning the second concentrated feed stream to the first membrane (via REF 750).
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses a method wherein the second concentrated feed stream is combined with additional feed water (via return stream, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Wei discloses a method further comprising passing the feed water through at least one desaturation unit (REF 710, fig. 7) adapted to at least partially precipitate particulates or remove minerals to form a supernatant (¶ 0071-0072).
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses a method wherein the supernatant is circulated to the first membrane (via REF 715, fig. 7).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wei discloses a method further comprising pretreating the feed water via filtration (via REF 705, ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 9, Wei discloses a method wherein filtered feed water is pumped at high pressure to the first membrane (¶ 0135, 0152).
Regarding claim 11, Wei discloses a system for cleaning feed water (see “brine”, abstract, fig. 7) comprising:
A first delivery pipe in communication with one of at least two feed chambers (upper, lower chambers of REF 720, fig. 7) and configured to introduce feed water to one of at least two feed chambers (see upper conduit upstream of REF 720);
A second delivery pipe in communication with an other of the at least two feed chambers and configured to introduce feed water to the other of the at least two feed chambers (see lower conduit upstream of REF 720);
A monitor configured to measure the concentration of the feed water in the one of at least two feed chambers (see specified brine concentrations, fig. 7, ¶ 0071);
An inlet (see “RO Brine”) for delivering feed water to a first osmotically assisted reverse osmosis membrane (REF 720, ¶ 0071);
At least one delivery pipe (from REF 720 to REF 725) for delivering an intermediate water stream to a second reverse osmosis membrane (REF 725, ¶ 0071);
At least one product water outlet (REF 730).
Regarding claim 12, Wei discloses a system further comprising a return pipe (from REF 725 to REF 705, fig. 7) for returning a second concentrated feed stream to the first membrane.
Regarding claim 13, Wei discloses a system capable of combining a second concentrated stream with additional feed water (via REF 705, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Wei discloses a system further comprising a delivery pipe (via “RO Brine” conduit, fig. 7) for passing the feed water through at least one desaturation unit (REF 710, ¶ 0071-0072).
Regarding claim 15, Wei discloses a system further comprising a return pipe for recirculating a supernatant from the desaturation unit to the first membrane (via REF 715, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Wei discloses the desaturation unit can be an ion exchange device (¶ 0071-0072).
Regarding claims 19-20, Wei discloses a system further comprising a pre-treatment filtration system (REF 750, fig. 7, ¶ 0071-0072).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Stover, US 2006/0245909 (Stover).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 18, while Wei utilizes a pressure exchanger (¶ 0077) to deliver an intermediate stream to downstream membrane treatment (fig. 11), Wei does not disclose a method/system where a pressure exchanger reduces the pressure of the second concentrated feed stream to substantially atmospheric pressure prior to returning said second concentrated feed stream to the first membrane. However, Stover discloses water treatment systems (abstract, fig. 1) where a reverse osmosis generated concentrate stream (REF 7) is fed through a pressure exchanger (REF 1) in order to reduce the pressure of said concentrate stream to substantially atmospheric pressure (¶ 0025).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/system of Wei to include a pressure exchanger situated on the reverse osmosis concentrate stream in order to reduce high pressure pumping capacity of the feed stream by transferring excess brine pressure to an inlet of a feed stream (¶ 0004).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Teed et al., US 4165288 (Teed).
Regarding claim 17, Wei does not disclose a system further comprising an open loop system open to atmosphere, wherein pressure of the second concentrated feed stream is reduced via said open loop system. However, Teed discloses a reverse osmosis water treatment system (abstract, fig. 1) having an open loop system wherein the pressure of a concentrated feed stream (via REF 26) in return pipes is reduced by passing said concentrated feed stream through chambers open to atmosphere (via REF 14).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wei to utilize an open loop system as described in Teed since it has been shown that such pressure reduction is effective in recirculating concentrated brine for further downstream treatment while minimizing pressure build-up in upstream systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., switchable feed chambers, concentration-based switching) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Wei fails to disclose “delivering feed water to one of at least two feed chambers, monitoring a concentration of the feed water in the one of at least two feed chambers” and “a monitor configured to measure the concentration of the feed water in the one of at least two feed chambers”, the examiner directs applicant’s attention to the rejections set forth above.
Wei discloses an incoming feed stream being split between two chambers of an OsARO membrane system (REF 720, see “the pretreated brine is then split”, ¶ 0071) where the concentration of the incoming feed stream as well as the product streams are monitored and labeled throughout the figures and specification. Wei specifically monitors concentration in order to optimize osmotic pressure, RO characteristics and final brine concentrations (¶ 0025-0029, 0071). The examiner maintains the prior art explicitly discloses these features.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to the combination of Wei and Stover is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights