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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the foreign Japanese application JP2023042424. The priority documents were received on 10/20/2023. The priority dates for all of the claims within this application are as follows:
Claims 1-19 priority date: 03/16/2023
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2023 and 07/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following grammatical error: The applicant wrote “1 or more and 3 carbon atoms”. The examiner believes the applicant meant to write, “1 or more and 3 or less carbon atoms”. To promote compact prosecution, the application will be examined as if claim 5 is written as, but not limited to, the prior recommended correction. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following grammatical error: The applicant wrote “separating the supernatant phase into the aqueous phase by heating and the organic phase and recovering…”. The examiner believes the applicant meant to write, “Separating the supernatant phase into the aqueous phase and organic phase by heating and recovering…”. To promote compact prosecution, the application will be examined as if claim 17 is written as, but not limited to, the prior recommended correction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-13, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toshiba (IN201844033942A).
With respect to claim 1, Toshiba teaches a water treatment system comprising {¶ 4}: an element that introduces treated water into a first container {¶ 8}; an element that introduces an amine solution into the first container to obtain a first mixture {¶ 8}; and an element that separates a supernatant phase and a concentrated phase of a second mixture {¶ 9-10} in which the first mixture is phase separated {¶ 9-10}, wherein the amine solution includes one or more tertiary amine compounds represented by a chemical formula (1) or/and a chemical formula (2) {¶ 5, compounds 1&2}, R1 in the chemical formula (1) is a linear alkyl chain having 2 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms {¶ 5}, R2 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 2 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms {¶ 5}, R3 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 1 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms or a branched alkyl group having 3 or 4 carbon atoms {¶ 5}, and R4 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl group having 1 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms or a branched alkyl group having 3 or 4 carbons atoms {¶ 5}.
With respect to claim 2, Toshiba teaches R2 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 2 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms, and R3 and R4 are the same and are linear alkyl groups each having 1 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms or branched alkyl groups each having 3 or 4 carbon atoms {¶ 5}.
With respect to claim 3, Toshiba teaches R2 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 2 or 3 carbon atoms, and R3 and R4 are the same and are linear alkyl groups each having 1 or more and 3 or less carbon atoms or branched alkyl groups each having 3 or 4 carbon atoms {¶ 5}.
With respect to claim 4, Toshiba teaches R2 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 2 or 3 carbon atoms, and R3 and R4 are the same and are linear alkyl groups each having 1 or more and 3 or less carbon atoms or branched alkyl groups each having 3 carbon atoms {¶ 5}.
With respect to claim 5, Toshiba teaches R2 in the chemical formula (2) is a linear alkyl chain having 3 carbon atoms {¶ 5}, and R3 and R4 are the same and are linear alkyl groups each having 1 or more and 3 carbon atoms {¶ 5}.
With respect to claim 6, Toshiba teaches the amine compound of the chemical formula (1) is one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (1-1), a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (1-2), and a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (1-3) {¶ 5, compound 2}.
With respect to claim 7, Toshiba teaches the amine compound of the chemical formula (2) is one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (2-1), a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (2-2), and a tertiary amine compound of the chemical formula (2-3) {¶ 5, compound 1}.
With respect to claim 12, Toshiba teaches the amine solution includes one or more tertiary amine compounds represented by a chemical formula (1) and a chemical formula (2) {¶ 5, compounds 1 &2}
With respect to claim 13, Toshiba teaches a water treatment method comprising: obtaining a first mixture by mixing treated water and amine solution {¶ 8}; obtaining a second mixture which is phase-separated {¶ 10} by phase-separating the first mixture {¶ 9-10}; and separating a supernatant phase and a concentrated phase of the second mixture {¶ 9-10}, wherein the amine solution includes one or more tertiary amine compounds represented by the chemical formula (1) or/and the chemical formula (2) according to claim 1 {¶ 5, compounds 1 & 2}.
With respect to claim 15, Toshiba teaches an element that separates the supernatant phase {¶ 19} into an aqueous phase and an organic phase {¶ 20} and recovers the tertiary amine {¶ 24}, wherein the supernatant phase separates into the aqueous phase and the organic phase at a higher temperature than the first mixture which separates into phases {¶ 20}.
With respect to claim 17, Toshiba teaches a method of separating the supernatant phase into the aqueous phase by heating and the organic phase {¶ 20} and recovering the tertiary amine {¶ 24}, wherein the supernatant phase separates into the aqueous phase and the organic phase at a higher temperature than the first mixture which separates into phases {¶ 20}.
With respect to claim 19, Toshiba teaches an amine solution comprising: a tertiary amine compound represented by a chemical formula (2-3) {¶ 5, compound 2}.
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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiba (IN201844033942A) in view of Kimberlin (US3177139A).
Toshiba teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 12-13, 15, 17, 19; as described in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Toshiba does not teach the amine solution includes 80% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less of the tertiary amine compound.
However, Kimberlin teaches an amine solution of 80% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less of the tertiary amine compound {Fig. 2}. The figure represents varying concentrations of water in the amine solvent from a concentration of 0% to 100%; showing that an amine concentration of between 80-100% is a possible embodiment of the solution for this invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the amine solution concentration of Kimberlin with the amine compound(s) of Toshiba because both inventions appear within the same field of endeavor: treating a water stream with an amine compound and using the amine solution’s phase separation tendencies to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these limitations of each invention because Toshiba states the concentration of the “draw solution” or amine solution is dependent on the solute of the water being treated, but does not give specific examples for this concentration. Kimberlin merely graphs the salt (solute) concentration is affected by varying amine concentrations, showing that any amine concentration from 0-100% can be an efficient solution depending on the solute content within the stream.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiba (IN201844033942A).
Toshiba teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 12-13, 15, 17, 19; as described in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Toshiba does not teach wherein the volume of treated water is 1, the volume of the amine solution is 4 or more and 100 or less, or 4 or more and 25 or less.
However, Toshiba does teach that the concentration of the amine solution can vary depending on the content of the solute within the water stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the parameters set by the applicant in claims 9-10 through a process of routine optimization. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, and there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges.
Claims 11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiba (IN201844033942A) in view of the combination of Parsue (CN106348376A) and Kimberlin (US3177139A). *Note all teachings and mappings from Parsue are based on the attached machine, English translation.
Toshiba teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 12-13, 15, 17, 19; as described in the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Toshiba does not teach the phase of the first mixture separates at 3°C or more and 40°C or less. Toshiba also does not teach the separating the supernatant phase into the aqueous phase and organic phase at 35°C or more and 90°C or less.
However, Parsue and Kimberlin teach the claimed ranges. Parsue teaches a temperature range that is substantially identical to the entire treatment process {Pg. 4 ¶ 1-3}, and Kimberlin teaches a temperature range for each separation step that are substantially identical to the claimed ranges. {Col. 6 Lines 15-22}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the experimental parameters of Parsue and Kimberlin with the invention of Toshiba because all of the inventions are within the same field of endeavor; specifically, the separation of a treatment solution and removal/recycling of an amine solvent. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine because the experimental parameters of the combined inventive methods are to improve the concentration of the amine solvent by recovering as little water as possible within the solvent {Kimberlin, Col. 6 Lines 17-21}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779