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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 and 20, in the reply filed on 24 JUNE 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the search of the method claims would necessarily fall under the umbrella of the search for the seawater reverse osmosis apparatus and therefore there would not be undue burden to search both inventions. This is not found persuasive because, while the two inventions have overlapping subject matter, the apparatus involves computer controlled apparatus for performing chemical mixing, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange and the method does not require the computer. As such, the method claims are much broader than the apparatus claims and would require extensive searching into all methods of controlling the aforementioned processes rather than the narrower processor controlled processes in the apparatus claims. Therefore, there would be a serious search burden if the inventions are not restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 JUNE 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0043, “a hallow fiber ultrafiltration” in lines 7-8 of the paragraph should read “a hollow fiber ultrafiltration”.
In Paragraph 0086, “The brine processing unit 310” in lines 3-4 of the paragraph should read “The brine processing unit 410”.
In Paragraph 0091, “FIGs. 1. 2,.3 and 4.” In line 3 of the paragraph should read “FIGs. 1, 2, 3 and 4”.
In Paragraph 0100, “FIGs. 1. 2,3,4 and 5.” In line 3 of the paragraph should read “FIGs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “treatment of liquid stream” in line 3 of the claim should read “treatment of a liquid stream” to improve the grammar.
In Claim 6, “the liquid stream” in lines 8-9 of the claim should read “the first liquid stream” because the first set of impurities is only introduced in the first liquid stream.
In Claim 20, “treatment of liquid stream” in line 5 of the claim should read “treatment of a liquid stream” to improve the grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi et at, US Patent Application No. US 20070102359 A1 (hereinafter Lombardi).
Regarding Claim 1, Lombardi teaches a set of unit operations (i.e., an apparatus, comprising; Abstract)
that are automated via control circuits utilizing various sensors and process design logic wherein the target materials present in the water are analyzed and various unit operations are selected to treat the water based upon the real-time composition analysis of the water (one or more processors configured to control; Paragraphs 0085-0086),
with a unit that oxidizes (Fig. 1, #120) the water (Fig. 1, #112) with chlorine dioxide (Paragraph 0069), mentioning a mixing reactor in another embodiment (i.e., one or more mixing units to perform a first stage of treatment of a liquid stream by adding a first set of chemical compounds in the liquid stream, wherein the first set of chemical compounds are added in the liquid stream to obtain a first liquid stream; Paragraph 0103),
followed by passing the water through an ultrafilter (i.e., an ultrafiltration unit; Fig. 1, #168) to remove any residuum such as suspended solids, colloidal silica, and biota (i.e., to perform a first stage purification of the first liquid stream by removing a first set of impurities from the first liquid stream, wherein the first set of impurities are removed from the first liquid stream to obtain a second liquid stream; Paragraphs 0072, 0077-0078),
followed by passing the permeate (Fig. 1, #176) through a nanofilter (Fig. 1, #180) to form another permeate (Fig. 1, #184; Paragraph 0079),
followed by passing this permeate (Fig. 1, #184) through a reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane unit; Fig. 1, #192) to form a fourth permeate (Fig. 1, #194) and retentate (Fig. 1, #196) to remove monovalent dissolved solids ions (i.e., to remove a second set of chemical compounds by passing the second liquid stream through a RO membrane, wherein the second liquid stream is passed through the RO membrane to output at least one of a RO brine stream and a RO permeate stream; Paragraph 0080),
followed by passing permeate discharge through an ion selective resin ion exchange system (i.e., an ion exchange unit; Fig. 8, #820) to remove ions from the permeate (i.e., to remove a third set of chemical compounds from the RO permeate stream, wherein the third set of chemical compounds are removed from the RO permeate stream to obtain a filtered liquid stream; Paragraph 0118),
wherein the ion exchange discharge can be pH adjusted to feed to boilers (i.e., store the filtered liquid stream; Paragraph 0118).
Lombardi does not explicitly teach the use of processors in the automated control scheme, but the described control circuits following logic instructions would necessarily contain processors. Furthermore, the processors are generically claimed to “control” processes without any specific control loops. Without specific elements, it is assumed that the control circuits taught by Lombardi are capable of controlling the processes as currently described in instant claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Lombardi further teaches the use of chlorine dioxide for pretreatment and flocculation with ferric iron (i.e., wherein the first set of chemical compounds further comprises at least one of chlorine dioxide (ClO2); Paragraph 0098).
Regarding Claim 3, Lombardi further teaches wherein the ultrafilter removes any residuum such as suspended solids, colloidal silica, and biota (i.e., wherein the first set of impurities further comprises at least one of suspended solids, colloidal particulates, or organic contaminants; Paragraphs 0072, 0077-0078).
Regarding Claim 4, Lombardi further teaches the reverse osmosis membrane removes monovalent dissolved solids ions (i.e., wherein the second set of chemical compounds further comprises at least one of salts, minerals, cations, or anions; Paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claim 8, Lombardi further teaches that the ultrafilter (Paragraphs 0077-0078) is followed by passing the permeate (Fig. 1, #176) through a nanofilter (i.e., wherein the apparatus further comprises of a nanofiltration (NF) membrane unit, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the NF membrane unit to perform a second stage purification of the second liquid stream; Fig. 1, #180) to form another permeate (i.e., to output at least one of a NF brine stream, and a NF permeate stream; Fig. 1, #184; Paragraph 0079) which is sent to a reverse osmosis unit (i.e., and transfer the NF permeate stream to the RO membrane unit to obtain the filtered liquid stream; Paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claim 9, Lombardi further teaches the nanofilter is a high pressure membrane nanofiltration (i.e., wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the NG membrane unit to modify a pressure value of the second liquid stream to obtain the NF permeate stream, wherein a first pressure value of the second liquid stream is greater than a second pressure value of the NF permeate stream; Fig. 1, #180) for the removal of multivalent ions (i.e., control the NF membrane unit to inhibit divalent ions of the second liquid stream to obtain the NF brine stream; Paragraph 0112) and then send that monovalent rich permeate to high pressure reverse osmosis (i.e., control the NF membrane unit to permit the NF permeate stream to pass through the NF membrane unit, wherein the NF permeate stream corresponds to a monovalent rich stream; Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 12, Lombardi further teaches that the hyperfilter/reverse osmosis membranes can specifically be spiral-wound membranes or hollow fiber membranes (i.e., wherein the RO membrane further comprises of at least one of a spiral wound RO membrane, or a hollow fiber RO membrane; Paragraph 0081).
Regarding Claim 20, Lombardi teaches a set of unit operations (Abstract)
that are automated via control circuits utilizing various sensors and process design logic wherein the target materials present in the water are analyzed and various unit operations are selected to treat the water based upon the real-time composition analysis of the water (A computer programmable product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored computer instruction, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out operations comprising controlling; Paragraphs 0085-0086),
with a unit that oxidizes (Fig. 1, #120) the water (Fig. 1, #112) with chlorine dioxide (Paragraph 0069), mentioning a mixing reactor in another embodiment (i.e., one or more mixing units to perform a first stage of treatment of a liquid stream by adding a first set of chemical compounds to the liquid stream, wherein the first set of chemical compounds are added in the liquid stream to obtain a first liquid stream; Paragraph 0103),
followed by passing the water through an ultrafilter (i.e., an ultrafiltration unit; Fig. 1, #168) to remove any residuum such as suspended solids, colloidal silica, and biota (i.e., to perform a first stage purification of the first liquid stream by removing a first set of impurities from the first liquid stream, wherein the first set of impurities are removed from the first liquid stream to obtain a second liquid stream; Paragraphs 0072, 0077-0078),
followed by passing the permeate (Fig. 1, #176) through a nanofilter (i.e., a nanofiltration (NF) membrane unit; Fig. 1, #180) to remove multivalent dissolved solids ions and oxidation treatment residuum in a retentate stream (i.e., to perform a second stage purification of the second liquid stream by at least one of inhibiting divalent ions of the second liquid stream) and form another permeate including most of the monovalent ions (i.e., and permitting a monovalent rich stream to pass through the NF membrane unit; wherein the second liquid stream is passed through the NF membrane unit to output at least one of a NF brine stream and a NF permeate stream; Fig. 1, #184; Paragraph 0079), with the nanofiltration occurring at high pressure (i.e., modifying a pressure value of the second liquid stream; Paragraph 0112),
followed by passing this permeate (Fig. 1, #184) through a reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane unit; Fig. 1, #192) to form a fourth permeate (Fig. 1, #194) and retentate (Fig. 1, #196) to remove monovalent dissolved solids ions (i.e., to remove a second set of chemical compounds by passing NF permeate stream through a RO membrane, wherein the NF permeate stream is passed through the RO membrane to output at least one of a RO brine stream and a RO permeate stream; Paragraph 0080),
followed by passing permeate discharge through an ion selective resin ion exchange system (i.e., an ion exchange unit; Fig. 8, #820) to remove ions from the permeate (i.e., to remove a third set of chemical compounds from the RO permeate stream, wherein the third set of chemical compounds are removed from the RO permeate stream to obtain a filtered liquid stream; Paragraph 0118),
wherein the ion exchange discharge can be pH adjusted to feed to boilers (i.e., store the filtered liquid stream; Paragraph 0118).
Lombardi does not explicitly teach the use of a computer programmable product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium and processors in the automated control scheme, but the described control circuits following logic instructions would necessarily contain processors and memory to store the logic instructions that are being followed. Furthermore, the processors are generically claimed to “control” processes without any specific control loops. Without specific elements, it is assumed that the control circuits taught by Lombardi are capable of controlling the processes as currently described in instant claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilf et al, US Patent No. US 7442309 B2 (hereinafter Wilf).
Regarding Claim 5, Lombardi does not teach wherein the third set of chemical compounds further comprises of boron.
However, Wilf teaches that after liquid has passed through a reverse osmosis device to reduce boron to less than 2ppm and then can be treated to further remove boron with ion exchange which can be a smaller size as a second pass unit and result in cost savings for boron removal (Col. 6, Lines 25-39).
Wilf is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to high salinity or seawater treatment by means of ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ion exchange as taught by Lombardi to remove boron as taught by Wilf because the ion exchange unit would significantly reduce the boron concentration in the final water with a smaller unit and at a lower cost.
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wallace, US Patent Application No. US 20110198285 A1 (hereinafter Wallace).
Regarding Claim 6, Lombardi further teaches that the steps prior to ultrafiltration (Fig. 1, #132, 144, 152) preferably have a pH in the range of about pH 4 to pH 10 (i.e., wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the one or more mixing units to modify a Potential of Hydrogen (pH) value based on the addition of the first set of chemical compounds; Paragraph 0073-0075) and that the pH of the stabilized stream is typically in the range of pH 6 to pH 8 (Paragraph 0067),
wherein the water is treated with chlorine dioxide and coagulants and pH adjusted to remove suspended solids (i.e., control the one or more mixing units to remove a second set of impurities form the liquid stream based on the addition of the first set of chemical compounds and control the one or more mixing units to agglomerate the first set of impurities of the first liquid stream based on the addition of the first set of chemical compounds; Paragraph 0102).
Lombardi does not explicitly teach wherein a pH value of the first liquid stream is lesser than a pH value of the liquid stream.
However, Wallace teaches the addition of acid in combination with chlorine to a seawater feed stream to reduce the pH of the seawater to less than about 6.5 pH (i.e., wherein a pH value of the first liquid stream is lesser than a pH value of the liquid stream; Paragraph 0038) for the purpose of enabling effective settling of silica in a colloidal suspension with conventional flocculants such as ferric chloride (Paragraph 0007).
Wallace is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a desalination facility including nanofiltration and reverse osmosis in series (Abstract) with chemical and ultrafiltration pretreatment (Paragraph 0037) and ion exchange polishing of the reverse osmosis permeate (Paragraph 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chemical addition steps as taught by Lombardi to acidify the water as pretreatment prior to membrane filtration as taught by Wallace because the acidification would enable flocculants to more effectively remove silica with conventional flocculants.
Regarding Claim 7, Lombardi further teaches the use of chlorine dioxide as a biocide to prevent bio-fouling of membranes and kill biota in the water (i.e., wherein the second set of impurities further comprises of at least one of microorganisms or biological contaminants; Paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 10, Lombardi further teaches that retentates, including the third retentate, which is from the nanofiltration step, contain most of the target materials and may be individually recycled or form a by-product (Paragraph 0198).
Lombardi does teach wherein the apparatus further comprises of a brine processing unit and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the brine processing unit to process the NF brine stream to extract a fourth set of chemical compounds.
However, Wallace teaches that the nanofiltration membrane (Fig. 2, #240) separates the incoming water stream into a nanofiltration permeate stream (Fig. 2, #241) and a nanofiltration non-permeate stream (Fig. 2, #242) in which the NF non-permeate stream contains essentially all of the sulfate, calcium, magnesium, residual iron, and other trace divalent metals in the seawater flows to a first mineral recovery unit (i.e., wherein the apparatus further comprises of a brine processing unit and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the brine processing unit to process the NF brine stream; Fig. 2, #245; Paragraph 0045) for the purpose of creating gypsum, magnesium hydroxide or magnesium oxide, and calcium chloride to be sold as byproducts (i.e., to extract a fourth set of chemical compounds; Paragraph 0046) to improve the economics of desalination and to reduce or eliminate the brine being recycled back into the sea which impacts marine ecosystems (Paragraph 0014-0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the unit operations as taught by Lombardi to extract gypsum, magnesium hydroxide or oxide, and calcium chloride as taught by Wallace because the byproducts can then be sold to improve the economics of seawater desalination and this will also prevent concentrated brine from being discharged back into the sea and impacting marine ecosystems.
Regarding Claim 11, Wallace further teaches that the sold byproducts are gypsum, magnesium hydroxide/oxide, and calcium chloride (i.e., wherein the fourth set of chemical compounds further comprises at least one of magnesium, calcium, sulphate; Paragraph 0046).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crouch, US Patent Application No. US 20210230017 A1, Chambhare, US Patent Application No. US 20180208480 A1, and Gordon, US Patent Application No. US 20070227962 A1, all pertain to seawater desalination reverse osmosis control systems in detail.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
