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 .
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 15, 16, 20-22, and 25 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the retentate stream produced by reverse osmosis” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, to which it depends, does not introduce a retentate stream, and does not introduce reverse osmosis at any step in the process; RO and its associated retentate stream are first introduced in claim 6. Claims 16 and 20-22 depend from claim 15 and incorporate the same indefiniteness.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "short circuit" in line 2 and “assisted” in line 3 referring to RED modes. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These modes are introduced in claim 3, not in claim 1 to which claim 25 depends.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (Hybrid RED/ED system: Simultaneous osmotic energy recovery…, Desalination, 2017) in view of Shi et al (CN 104016528 A), or in the alternative over Wang et al in view of Shi et al and Shin (KR 10-2143387 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches a process for treat of wastewaters e.g. saline wastewaters with TDS greater than or equal to 20 g/l, and containing organic substances i.e. treatment of a simulated raw wastewater with salt content of 4.5-4.8%, implying a TDS of around 45-48, and including organics e.g. phenol/phenate [Abs, Table 1]. The process includes subjecting the saline stream to reverse electrodialysis using a reservoir solution with a lower salinity (a “fresh” stream of ultrapure water i.e. of near-zero TDS [sec. 3.2]) to form a diluate and a diluted stream; regarding the TDS of the diluted stream, Wang teaches that the pre-desalination achieved by the RED can be maximized e.g. with residence time (or by providing duplicate units in parallel) [sec. 4.2.2] in order to improve the efficiency of subsequent operations and overall energy efficiency; as such, optimizing the TDS of the diluted stream would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Wang teaches, generally, that the desalinated feed stream, after processing by RED and an associated electrodialysis stage, may be passed to biochemical treatment [Fig. 2] such that processing to form sludge, clarified water, and the like would at least have been obvious. Additionally or alternatively, see Shin, which teaches employing biological treatment to remove organic matter after a deionization step such as ED where such ED is useful to reduce the accumulated ions which might inhibit the biological treatment [0010, 0018, 0027, 0046].
Wang (or Wang in view of Shin) essentially differs from the instant claims in that they are silent to the use of a first step of separating saline water from suspended solids using a physical separation.
However, Shi teaches electrodialysis and related processes and teaches methods of preventing and controlling fouling in such processes [0002] and teaches employing membranes such as microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes to reduce membrane fouling in a subsequent stage e.g. a ED stage [0022] by removing suspended solids, colloidal substances, and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wang (or Wang as modified by Shin) in view of Shi to include a pretreatment with a physical separation such as MF or UF because, as in Shi, this can remove suspended solids or the like and thereby inhibit fouling in the ED membranes. The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over such combination.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as above Wang teaches feed streams with implied TDS of up to about 48 g/l. See further MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Wang is directed to treatment of very high salinity feeds, and explicitly discloses e.g. 4.8% salt content solutions; as such, treatment of streams of about 50 g/l or above would at least have been obvious given the general conditions disclosed by Wang.
With respect to claim 17, as above the use of filtration such as MF or UF would have been obvious in view of Shi.
With respect to claim 18, as above the diluted stream is treated in a biological reactor as in Wang and/or in view of Shin.
Claims 4, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Shi et al (or in the alternative over Wang et al in view of Shi et al and Shin), further in view of Mei et al (Recent developments and future perspectives of reverse electrodialysis…, Desalination, 2018).
Wang teaches RED for pre-desalination as above, and teaches that the rates may be lower but that overall it is economical and can be scales as needed to balance and achieve high pre-desalination. Wang is silent to SRED or VARED operations, or to specific parameters such as pressure.
However, Mei teaches forms of RED and teaches [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 5] that process such as SRED and VARED (short-circuit and assisted RED, respectively) may trade energy production for faster migration of ions e.g. for desalination applications by applying additional “pressure” in the form of an applied voltage (or, at minimum, a net-zero output voltage) in a manner analogous to RO. It would have been obvious to employ one of these modes in the process of Wang in order to gain the benefit of increasing the rate of salt transport and thereby optimize between the competing considerations e.g. transport rate and energy efficiency. Further, because as in Mei this process may be analogized to osmotic processes such as RO, optimization of the effective pressure would similarly have been obvious e.g. to ensure that the transport is facilitated properly. Regarding the temperature employed, see discussion above; "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5-15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Shi et al (or in the alternative over Wang et al in view of Shi et al and Shin), further in view of Zhang et al (CN 109011668 B).
With respect to claims 5 and 19, Wang (and Shin) teach treatments as above which include biological treatment of saline, organic-containing wastewater where such biological treatment is preceded by desalination steps using ED and similar methods; they are silent to further physical separation of the biologically treated water, or to specific forms of biological treatment such as MBBR.
However, Zhang teaches methods of treating wastewater including crystallization treatments for salt separation and recovery of highly saline streams [0002] and teaches that the process preferably includes a biochemical treatment employing e.g. a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) [0016] in order to degrade COD to improve the stability of downstream salt separation treatments [0089]; the MBBR includes a physical separation in the form of a security filter acting on the effluent [0093].
It would have been obvious to include such features in the modified process of Wang because Wang does not particularly limit the details of the biological treatment, and Zhang teaches specific details useful for addressing the needs of a saline wastewater treatment process with a focus on facilitating salt recovery and the like.
With respect to claims 6-14, Wang teaches as above and at least suggests the process is generally applicable to recovery of valuable salt products, but is silent to specific arrangements involving conveyance of one or more flows to one or more reverse osmosis membranes to produce a very low TDS permeate and a retentate.
However, as above Zhang teaches wastewater treatment for salt recovery in highly saline streams, and teaches that after biological treatment, effluent is passed to a reverse osmosis system for further concentration and permeate recovery, where the retentate is then passed for further treatment and salt recovery [0017, 0095]. Regarding the specific TDS values obtained or the specific balance of flows employed for dilution and mixing and the like, as discussed above, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The guidance of Zhang would render the invention of claims 6-14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for processing streams generated by the modified process of Wang, to facilitate salt recovery and the like.
With respect to claims 15, 20, and 21, as above Zhang teaches recovery of solids which are concentrated in the RO retentate, via crystallization.
With respect to claim 22, Wang teaches that typical seawater contains species such as magnesium [Table 2], such that treatment of highly saline streams in which magnesium is a possible material for recovery by crystallization is at minimum obvious.
Claims 16, 24, and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Shi et al (or in the alternative over Wang et al in view of Shi et al and Shin), in view of Zhang et al, further in view of Wallace (US PGPub 2020/0239346 A1).
Wang (and Shi) and Zhang teach as above, including recovery of valuable salts and the like from saline streams. They are silent to specific processing of concentrated brines (e.g. RO retentate) via bipolar membrane electrodialysis to produce acid and base streams.
However, Wallace teaches water treatment systems [Abs] for saline stream and for mineral removal, and teaches that a concentrated brine stream produced in the system may be fed to a bipolar membrane electrodialysis system to produce HCl and NaOH [0007, 0046, 0048] e.g. a fed by a recycle stream from an RO retentate. These may produce commercially viable acid and base products, possibly with further processing [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a similar component in the modified process of Wang to provide additional value e.g. as a way to employ the sodium and chlorine species to produce valuable products.
Regarding the pressure of the RO stream, this is not explicitly limited by Wang, Zhang, or Wallace; however, Wallace does teach that a low pressure permeate stream from an NF membrane system, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being lower than the feed to an RO system, may be as high as 20 psig [0054] which is already higher than 1 atm; as such, operation of a higher-pressure separation method such as an RO separation at greater than 1 atm is at minimum obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding the temperature employed for RO, see the discussion above; "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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 1777