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 1-12, in the reply filed on 9/23/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/25.
It is noted that claims 13 must either depend upon, or recite all apparatus limitations of the apparatus system of claim 1 for rejoinder. Currently claim 13 does NOT recite all limitations of claim 1, nor depend upon it, and therefore should be amended for proper rejoinder.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “thought the boiler” appears to be a typo of “through the boiler”. 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 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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) taken in combination with Zebuhr (US 2012/0037488).
Regarding claim 1, Razzaghi teaches a system for separating components from a fluid stream (see title, abstract, and Fig 1, recreated below), comprising: a heat exchanger 34 comprising: a fluid passage (left side dotted line of 34); a fluid inlet configured for conveying a fluid stream into the fluid passage of the heat exchanger 34 (from pump 42); a fluid outlet configured for passing a heated fluid stream out of the fluid passage of the heat exchanger (line 38); a vapor passage (right side dotted line of 34), at least a portion of which is positioned adjacent the fluid passage such that heat can be transferred from the vapor passage to the fluid passage; a vapor inlet configured for conveying a vapor stream into the vapor passage of the heat exchanger 34 (from compressor 32); a vapor outlet configured for passing a cooled vapor stream out of the vapor passage of the heat exchanger 34 (to condensate receiver 36); and a phase separator 20 comprising: an inlet in fluid communication with the fluid outlet of the heat exchanger (line 38); and an outlet 30 configured for passing a vapor stream out of the phase separator, the outlet being in fluid communication with the vapor inlet of the heat exchanger 34 (via the compressor; wherein the phase separator is configured to separate the heated fluid stream into a vapor stream and a liquid/solid stream 24 (to “CONCENTRATED BLOWDOWN”) (see Fig 1 and C5:L15-C6:L47), Razzaghi teaches the exchanger may be a plate exchanger, or “Other types of exchangers, shell and tube, double pipe, finned tube, spiral type, may also be considered by those skilled in the art, provided the specific requirements of the invention are maintained” (see C9:L1-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Razzaghi does not teach the heat exchanger comprising one or more moveable scrapers positioned within the heat exchanger and configured to remove material from one or more surfaces of the fluid passage.
Zebuhr teaches a distillation apparatus 10 that utilizes an evaporator condenser heat exchanger design 60 in a cylindrical member 64 with concentrically arranged evaporation channels 66 and condensing channels 72 having shared surfaces for heat transfer (see Fig 1 and [0068]), Zebuhr further teaches in evaporation channels receive liquid from sump 52 by pump 54, and that application assembly 85 has liquid scraper blades 80 pass through the channels to remove residuals from the surface including contaminants, scale, particulates, precipitants, and that scraping residuals from the surface contributes to consistent heat transfer across the heat transfer surfaces (see Figs 1 and 8, [0091,0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Razzaghi, which Razzaghi suggest can comprise “other types of exchangers” (Razzaghi C9:L1-8), to select the heat exchanger design of Zebuhr which provides for vapor/liquid counter contacting, having liquid scrapers for scraping residuals from the heat transfer surfaces to allow for consistent heat transfer across the surface, as taught by Zebuhr, to ensure consistent heat transfer when evaporating the water prone to fouling/scaling of Razzaghi (see Razzaghi, C1:L5-10).
Regarding claim 2, in modified Razzaghi, the heat exchanger of Zebuhr utilizes concentrically formed liquid/vapor passages (see Zebuhr Fig 1, [0068]).
Regarding claims 3-4, in modified Razzaghi, the heat exchanger of Zebuhr comprises a rotating shaft 120 extending the length of fluid passage, the rotating shaft being positioned along a central longitudinal axis of the fluid passage; wherein the one or more moveable scrapers 80 are attached to the rotating shaft such that rotation of the shaft moves the movable scraper blades around the circumference of the fluid passage (via rotary assembly 115, part of motor 116, drives liquid applicator device 58 part of liquid application assembly 85 having the scrapers 80, see [0104,0069]), an external power supply (motor 116 part of rotary assembly 115) rotating shaft separably coupled with the rotating shaft 120; and wherein the fluid passage comprises an opening through which the rotating shaft may be removed from the fluid passage when decoupled from the external power supply rotating shaft (see MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C), making components separable, such as the motor, would be obvious to the skilled artisan to support maintenance of the motor and rotor assembly) (see Fig 1, 9-10, [0069,0079-0083,0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Razzaghi has further taught compressor 32 to increase pressure of vapor stream 30 exiting phase separator 20 (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Razzaghi further teaches wherein pre-treatment and/or post-treatment of the water/steam includes filtration (see claims 9-10 and 14-15).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) taken in combination with Zebuhr (US 2012/0037488), as applied above and further in combination with Schubert (US 9,540,250).
Regarding claim 5, modified Razzaghi teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the system further comprising: a boiler configured to further heat the heated fluid stream prior to the heated fluid stream being transported to the phase separator.
Schubert teaches a system for water reclamation (see title, abstract), Schubert teaches the system comprises contaminant collection heat exchanger 42 that exchanges heat with extraction steam 24, where the heated condensate is provided to boiler feed water 20 having boiler 12 that separates the steam 24 in turbine to provide back to contaminant collection heat exchanger 42 (see Fig 1A, C3:L60-C4:L53).
Therefore, in a desire to further utilize the preheated water of Razzaghi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Razzaghi to include steam boiler after the recovery heat exchanger as taught by Schubert motivated to incorporate a steam turbine to further provide for energy generation in the system of Razzaghi.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) taken in combination with Zebuhr (US 2012/0037488), as applied above and further in combination with Wylie (US 2013/0299361).
Regarding claim 8, modified Razzaghi teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the system further comprising: an electrochemical cell configured to oxidize contaminants in the vapor stream by generating a plasma.
Wylie teaches a system for treatment of wastewaters to destroy contaminants by electrochemical oxidation process (see title, abstract), Wylie teaches wherein the system destroys target contaminants in the stream via electrochemical oxidation in electrochemical cell 140, the peroxy oxidant, e.g. persulfate is efficiently activated at the diamond anode 142, i.e. by hydroxyl species on the diamond surface, even when operated at relatively low current density, oxidation of the organic contaminants such as phenols and naphthenic acid or other refractory or toxic contaminant is demonstrated to proceed with high current efficiency, and much more rapidly than simply mixing the concentrated oxidant solution 112 with the wastewater 122 without electrochemical treatment in the second cell 140 (see Fig 1 and [0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vapor stream of Razzaghi if carryover contaminants were detected utilizing the electrochemical cell as taught by Wylie motivated to destroy contaminants in the vapor stream of Razzaghi which Wylie teaches is effective at destroying contaminant found in waters.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) taken in combination with Zebuhr (US 2012/0037488), as applied above and further in combination with Korenic (US 9,540,250).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Razzaghi teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the system further comprising: an air cooler configured for further cooling the cooled vapor stream exiting the steam outlet nor wherein the cooled vapor stream exiting the vapor passage is in the form of a liquid, the system further comprising: a contactor column configured to blow air through liquid cooled vapor stream in a counter current direction to thereby strip hydrocarbons from the liquid cooled vapor stream.
Korenic teaches a direct and indirect air blow evaporative heat exchanger serving as condenser, fluid cooler or wet-air cooler (see title, abstract), Korenic teaches air entry zone common to both heat exchange sections receives an air stream blown into this zone by at least one fan, thereby pressurizing the plenum such that the air stream is forced to split and enter each section while inside the apparatus and this eliminates the need for separate air entries, thus condensing the size and cost of the apparatus, while increasing heat exchange capacity, with further countercurrent air flow pattern through the direct section provides a uniformly cooled evaporative liquid for use in the indirect section where the evaporative liquid flow is parallel to the air stream provided in the indirect section (see abstract, Fig 1, C6:L15-C:L20), teachings that the invention provides the advantage of compact design with the sensible and evaporative heat exchange uses (see C5:L17-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vapor stream cooling/condensation of Razzaghi to incorporate air driven both direct contact (i.e. counter current bubbling), and indirect (“air cooler”) as claimed to ensure continuous cooling and sensible heat and evaporative heat exchange while maintaining compact design.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) taken in combination with Zebuhr (US 2012/0037488), as applied above and further in combination with Zebuhr (US 2015/0336024), hereinafter Zebuhr ‘024.
Regarding claim 11, modified Razzaghi teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the system further comprising: an incinerator configured to receive liquid/solid stream produced by the phase separator and incinerate hydrocarbons present in the liquid/solid stream.
Zebuhr ‘024 teaches a compound distiller including an integrated heating chamber for heating the evaporation surface (see title, abstract), Zebuhr ‘024 teaches wherein scrapers 59 scrape solids/liquids not evaporated into a heating chamber 7 for combustion of the materials therein to provide heating to the compound distiller (see Figs 2-3, and 7, and [0028]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify heat exchanger of modified Razzaghi, as Zebuhr incorporated therein, to include the improvement of Zebuhr ‘024 that incorporates combustion of the scraped sediments, motivated to provide heating to the heat exchanger and to provide for combustion/destruction of the scraped solids removed from the evaporating side of the compound heat exchanger of modified Razzaghi.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 (and provisionally 13-20) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 (and provisionally 11-18) of U.S. Patent No. 11,826,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘672 patent are the more limited of the two sets of claims, and it is obvious to claim the less limited instantly claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if a timely-filed properly executed terminal disclaimer were filed to overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth above.
When making amendments applicant should be sure to avoid Statutory Double Patenting.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: considering claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed system for separating components from a fluid stream, comprising: a heat exchanger comprising: a fluid passage; a fluid inlet configured for conveying a fluid stream into the fluid passage of the heat exchanger; a fluid outlet configured for passing a heated fluid stream out of the fluid passage of the heat exchanger; one or more moveable scrapers positioned within the heat exchanger and configured to remove material from one or more surfaces of the fluid passage; a vapor passage, at least a portion of which is positioned adjacent the fluid passage such that heat can be transferred from the vapor passage to the fluid passage; a vapor inlet configured for conveying a vapor stream into the vapor passage of the heat exchanger; a vapor outlet configured for passing a cooled vapor stream out of the vapor passage of the heat exchanger; and a phase separator comprising: an inlet in fluid communication with the fluid outlet of the heat exchanger; and an outlet configured for passing a vapor stream out of the phase separator, the outlet being in fluid communication with the vapor inlet of the heat exchanger; wherein the phase separator is configured to separate the heated fluid stream into a vapor stream and a liquid/solid stream with boiler configured to further heat the heated fluid stream prior to the heated fluid stream being transported to the phase separator, wherein one or more augers or conveyors are provided within the boiler, the one or more augers or conveyors being configured to convey non-flowable components through the boiler.
Razzaghi et al (US 6,375,803) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Razzaghi teaches a system for separating components from a fluid stream (see title, abstract, and Fig 1, recreated below), comprising: a heat exchanger 34 comprising: a fluid passage (left side dotted line of 34); a fluid inlet configured for conveying a fluid stream into the fluid passage of the heat exchanger 34 (from pump 42); a fluid outlet configured for passing a heated fluid stream out of the fluid passage of the heat exchanger (line 38); a vapor passage (right side dotted line of 34), at least a portion of which is positioned adjacent the fluid passage such that heat can be transferred from the vapor passage to the fluid passage; a vapor inlet configured for conveying a vapor stream into the vapor passage of the heat exchanger 34 (from compressor 32); a vapor outlet configured for passing a cooled vapor stream out of the vapor passage of the heat exchanger 34 (to condensate receiver 36); and a phase separator 20 comprising: an inlet in fluid communication with the fluid outlet of the heat exchanger (line 38); and an outlet 30 configured for passing a vapor stream out of the phase separator, the outlet being in fluid communication with the vapor inlet of the heat exchanger 34 (via the compressor; wherein the phase separator is configured to separate the heated fluid stream into a vapor stream and a liquid/solid stream 24 (to “CONCENTRATED BLOWDOWN”) (see Fig 1 and C5:L15-C6:L47), Razzaghi teaches the exchanger may be a plate exchanger, or “Other types of exchangers, shell and tube, double pipe, finned tube, spiral type, may also be considered by those skilled in the art, provided the specific requirements of the invention are maintained” (see C9:L1-8).
Schubert (US 9,540,250) also teaches a system for water reclamation (see title, abstract), Schubert teaches the system comprises contaminant collection heat exchanger 42 that exchanges heat with extraction steam 24, where the heated condensate is provided to boiler feed water 20 having boiler 12 that separates the steam 24 in turbine to provide back to contaminant collection heat exchanger 42 (see Fig 1A, C3:L60-C4:L53), however the boiler of Schubert is a steam generator, and Schubert is silent to wherein one or more augers or conveyors are provided within the boiler, the one or more augers or conveyors being configured to convey non-flowable components through the boiler.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bitterly et al (US 2020/0399143) teaches a wiper in combination with heat exchange. Sanderson et al (US 7,837,768) teaches a distillation system with heat exchange and separation. Kresnyak et al (US 6,551,466) teaches a distillation system with heat exchange and separation. Watt (US 3,274,076) teaches a heat exchanger still with wipers. Neugebauer et al (US 3,190,817) teaches compression distillation with wipers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 on (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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772