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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the claim lists two separate equations for calculation the outflow velocity of a given pool, vn, as well as an additional intermediate equation for calculating a component therof; the two equations for calculating vn will be referred to herein as “Equation 1” and “Equation 3” for brevity as follows:
Equation 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best understood, Equation 1 and Equation 3 are intended to represent the same general calculation, with Equation 1 being simplified into Equation 3 using certain relationships described in the claim. However, it is not clear that these two have the same scope, as it appears that certain simplifications i.e. the determination of the boundary condition flowrates may involve assumptions or approximations and therefore the two equations may not have precisely the same scope. This leads to indefiniteness because it is not clear what the precise required scope of calculation is for determining and controlling the outflow velocity in the claimed process.
From the context of the disclosure it appears as if the equation identified above as Equation 3 is the equation intended for use in controlling the process of the invention, whereas Equation 1 is intended as a more general equation representing conservation of salinity (see [0045-0052] of the instant specification); in this case, examiner suggests omitting Equation 1 from the claim language and instead reciting only those equations and terms which are necessary for carrying out the process as intended i.e. by defining those variables which must be measured or controlled, defining those relationships required for calculating the necessary derived values, and relating them as appropriate to the terms of the equation defining the outflow velocity.
Claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are rejected as indefinite for the reasons discussed above; however, as their scope is currently understood, they are free from the prior art.
The closest prior art is represented by Fang et al (CN 111268844 A) which teaches saline-alkali water desalination in which water is preliminarily treated through membrane separation including nanofiltration to separate saline water from alkali water, and then is fed to an evaporation subsystem where solar heating is employed to concentrate the salt. Fang is silent to the specific arrangement of evaporation pools and, most particularly, to controlling the outflow of such evaporation pools or equivalent structures according to the claimed process steps i.e. employing the claims equations and relations contributing to such. While evaporation ponds are well known in the art and the concept of flow control is common in the art, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of employing the specific claimed control process for such an application and the prior art, alone or in combination, would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed process. As such, claims 1-7 are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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 1776
Prosecution Insights