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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0368476) in view of Sathrugnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0205313), hereinafter “Wallace” and “Sathrugnan”.
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Wallace teaches a water processing system 10 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraph [0023]), comprising:
pretreatment system 12 configured to receive seawater feed stream 14 and to generate a pretreated feed stream 18 based on the seawater feed stream 14 (Paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0028-0030]; Fig. 2);
a first nanofiltration (NF) system 20 configured to receive pretreated feed stream 18 and to generate an NF permeate stream 100 and brine stream 30 (“NF filtrate stream”), wherein NF permeate stream 100 comprises monovalent ions and brine stream (“NF filtrate stream”) comprises divalent ions (“PV salt stream” in claim 17, comprising calcium and sulfate ions) (see Paragraph [0030]);
purification system 112 which is embodied as a reverse osmosis system configured to receive brine stream 110 (generated from NF permeate stream 100 from which CO2 was stripped) and (inherently) configured to generate an RO concentrate stream and desalinated water 28 (see Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0030, 0031]);
mineral removal system 32 which is configured to remove sodium chloride salt (“a monovalent (MV) mineral recovery system”) configured to receive RO concentrate stream (see arrow to the left coming from purification system 112 (comprising the RO system) in Fig. 2) (see Paragraphs [0025-0027, 0050]), wherein the mineral removal system 32 comprises a gypsum recovery system configured to receive the PV salt stream (brine stream 30) and generate gypsum 46 and a PV salt recycle stream which is recycled gypsum slurry 160, filtrate 162, and excess concentrated gypsum slurry 170 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032, 0042-0044]).
Wallace does not specifically teach generation of a concentrated MV salt recycle stream and recycle seawater system configured to generate a recycle seawater stream based on the MV salt recycle stream, wherein the recycle seawater system is configured to direct the recycle seawater stream to the NF system.
Sathrugnan teaches recycling an RO concentrate stream from which sulfate is precipitated and removed (“a concentrated MV salt recycle stream”) and backwash water to an NF process (see Abstract; Paragraphs [0023, 0025, 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the step of an RO concentrate stream from which sulfate is precipitated and removed (“a concentrated MV salt recycle stream”) to an NF process as taught by Sathrugnan to the system of Wallace because Wallace teaches that the mineral recovery system 32 produces a variety of stream, at least one of which appears to be recycled to the pretreatment system 12 (see Fig. 1; see also Paragraph [0025]: streams 36/38), and because Sathrugnan teaches that the disclosed recycle stream allows for essentially complete recycling of concentrate water and backwash water, so that no concentrate is released, reducing operational costs and impact the to the environment (see Paragraphs [0001, 0013]).
Regarding the limitations pertaining to the recycle seawater system, the Examiner submits that the above modification combines a concentrated MV salt reject stream (which was originally seawater feed stream 14) with backwash water to form the feed stream for an NF system.
With respect to claim 2, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches mineral removal system 32 comprising a gypsum 46 removal (“recovery”) system 115 (see Wallace: Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032-0035]), wherein mineral removal system 32 generates one or more desalination streams 36, at least one of which (stream 38) is recycled back to pretreatment system 112 which is directly upstream from nanofiltration system 20 (Paragraph [0025]; Figs. 1, 2), and gypsum 46 and magnesium hydroxide 54 (“polyvalent/PV streams”) (see Paragraph [0026]; Figs. 1, 2).
With respect to the limitations “gypsum recovery system is configured to direct PV salt to the recycle feedwater system”, these limitations are considered to be met by conduits 38 and 18, which are a part of the “recycle seawater system” with the MV salt reject stream that is recycled via the conduit from RO to NF obtained by the combination of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan; see also, wherein the PV salt recycle stream which is recycled gypsum slurry 160, filtrate 162, and excess concentrated gypsum slurry 170 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032, 0042-0044]).
With respect to claims 3 and 7, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches mineral removal system 32 which is configured to generate a magnesium hydroxide stream and a magnesium chloride streams (Paragraph [0032, 0045-0047, 0058]).
With respect to claim 18, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches that the NF system 20 can comprise a first NF unit configured to filter a first portion of sulfate ions to generate the monovalent salt stream (permeate) and a brine stream/”NF stream”, and a second NF unit configured to filter a second portion of sulfate ions present in the pretreated feed stream to generate divalent salt stream (“PV salt stream”) (Paragraph [0030]), the first portion less than the second portion as the second NF unit if the second NF unit receives that brine stream/NF stream from the first NF unit.
Although Wallace does not specifically teach if the permeate or concentrate stream from the first NF unit would be passed on to the second NF unit for filtration, the Examiner submits that Wallace teaches passing the concentrate/NF stream onto the second NF unit with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” passing the concentrate/NF stream onto the second NF unit, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to claim 19, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches mineral removal system 32 which is configured to generate a magnesium chloride stream from the PV salt recycle stream (Paragraph [0032, 0042-0047, 0058]).
With respect to claims 4 and 20, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan does not specifically teach that the ratio of the seawater stream and the recycled seawater stream is controllable based on a flow rate threshold associated with the NF system; however, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio of seawater to recycle streams as they are combined to head into the NF system as taught by Wallace in view of Sathrugnan, in order to avoid overwhelming the membranes of the NF unit(s).
It has been held that “[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); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). In this case, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan do not specify the workable ranges for the ratio of seawater to recycle streams, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely that the seawater and recycle streams are combined. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Wallace in view of Sathrugnan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0368476) in view of Sathrugnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0205313) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ayirala et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0148633) OR Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0289099), hereinafter “Wallace”, “Sathrugnan”, “Ayirala”, and “Wallace (‘099)”.
With respect to claim 5, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan does not specifically teach an NF permeate recycle seawater system configured to take NF permeate from the NF system and direct the NF permeate as a recycle stream to the NF system.
Aiyrala teaches a seawater treatment system comprising NF, wherein NF permeate is recycled to mix with the seawater feed stream (Paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the NF permeate recycle system of Aiyrala to the system of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan, in order to gain the advantage of controlling the salinity of the feed stream based on how much of the NF permeate is recycled to combine with the seawater feed stream. This modification would result in the recycled NF permeate passing through the pretreatment system and then to the NF system of Wallace.
In the alternative, Wallace (‘099) teaches recycling NF permeate from a down stream NF unit to the first stage NF unit (Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the NF permeate recycle system of Wallace (‘099) to the system of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan, in order to gain the advantage of controlling the salinity of the NF feed stream based on how much of the NF permeate is recycled to combine with the feed stream heading into the first NF unit.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0368476) in view of Sathrugnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0205313) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0020259) and Marcin et al. (U.S. Patent # 7867470), hereinafter “Wallace”, “Sathrugnan”, “Wallace (‘259)”, and “Marcin”.
With respect to claim 6, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan does not specifically teach a sulfuric acid production system that directs sulfuric acid upstream of the NF system.
Wallace (‘259) teaches addition of sulfuric acid upstream from NF (Paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the sulfuric acid of Wallace (‘259) to the system of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan because Wallace teaches addition of a strong acid HCl 72 to the pretreated feed stream upstream from the NF system, and because Wallace (‘259) teaches that sulfuric acid is used as an equivalent acid to HCl for adjusting feedwater upstream of membrane separation of ions from seawater, which includes NF (see Paragraphs [0072, 0074]). Regarding generation of sulfuric acid from a sulfur source, it is well known to produce sulfuric acid onsite by mixing sulfur trioxide gas with a sulfuric acid solution, followed by oxidation to obtain a sulfuric acid at a higher concentration (see Marcin: Abstract; Claim 1).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0368476) in view of Sathrugnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0205313) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2004/0055955), hereinafter “Wallace”, “Sathrugnan”, and “Davis”.
With respect to claim 8, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches obtaining NaCl with a purity of 99.9% within the mineral recovery system 32, but does not specifically teach a downstream NaCl crystallizer as claimed.
Davis teaches an NaCl crystallizer (Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the NaCl crystallizer of Davis to the system of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan, as Wallace teaches that industrial grade NaCl is desirably obtained (Paragraph [0022]), and because Davis teaches that NaCl crystals can be obtained from a similar desalination process by utilization of evaporative concentration (Paragraph [0076]), which meets high purity standards (Paragraph [0125]).
With respect to claim 9, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan teaches that the recycle seawater stream supplements the pretreated feed stream to the NF system (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0368476) in view of Sathrugnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0205313) and Ayirala et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0148633) OR Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0289099), hereinafter “Wallace”, “Sathrugnan”, “Ayirala” and “Wallace (‘099)”.
With respect to claims 10 and 16, Wallace teaches a water processing system 10 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraph [0023]), comprising:
pretreatment system 12 configured to receive seawater feed stream 14 and to generate a pretreated feed stream 18 based on the seawater feed stream 14 (Paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0028-0030]; Fig. 2);
a nanofiltration (NF) system 20 configured to receive pretreated feed stream 18 comprising sulfate ions (Paragraph [0030]), wherein the NF system 20 comprises a first NF unit configured to generate an NF permeate stream 100 and brine stream 30 (“NF filtrate stream”) based on the pretreated feed stream, wherein NF permeate stream 100 comprises monovalent ions and brine stream (“NF filtrate stream”) comprises divalent ions (“PV salt stream” in claim 17, comprising calcium and sulfate ions), and a second NF unit configured to receive either the filtrate or permeate stream from the first NF unit (see Paragraph [0030]);
purification system 112 which is embodied as a reverse osmosis system configured to receive brine stream 110 (generated from NF permeate stream 100 from which CO2 was stripped) and (inherently) configured to generate an RO concentrate stream and desalinated water 28 (see Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0030, 0031]);
mineral removal system 32 which is configured to remove sodium chloride salt (“a monovalent (MV) mineral recovery system”) configured to receive RO concentrate stream (see arrow to the left coming from purification system 112 (comprising the RO system) in Fig. 2) (see Paragraphs [0025-0027, 0050]), wherein the mineral removal system 32 comprises a gypsum recovery system configured to receive the PV salt stream (brine stream 30) and generate gypsum 46 and a PV salt recycle stream which is recycled gypsum slurry 160, filtrate 162, and excess concentrated gypsum slurry 170 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032, 0042-0044]).
Although Wallace does not specifically teach if the permeate or concentrate stream from the first NF unit would be passed on to the second NF unit for filtration, the Examiner submits that Wallace teaches passing the permeate onto the second NF unit with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” passing the concentrate/NF stream onto the second NF unit, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Wallace does not specifically teach generation of a concentrated MV salt recycle stream and recycle seawater system configured to generate a recycle seawater stream based on the MV salt recycle stream, wherein the recycle seawater system is configured to direct the recycle seawater stream to the NF system.
Sathrugnan teaches recycling an RO concentrate stream from which sulfate is precipitated and removed (“a concentrated MV salt recycle stream”) and backwash water to an NF process (see Abstract; Paragraphs [0023, 0025, 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the step of an RO concentrate stream from which sulfate is precipitated and removed (“a concentrated MV salt recycle stream”) to an NF process as taught by Sathrugnan to the system of Wallace because Wallace teaches that the mineral recovery system 32 produces a variety a stream, at least one of which appears to be recycled to the pretreatment system 12 (see Fig. 1), and because Sathrugnan teaches that this allows for essentially complete recycling of concentrate water and backwash water, so that no concentrate is released, reducing operational costs and impact the to the environment (see Paragraphs [0001, 0013]).
Wallace does not specifically teach an NF permeate recycle seawater system configured to take NF permeate from the NF system and direct the NF permeate as a recycle stream to the NF system.
Aiyrala teaches a seawater treatment system comprising NF, wherein NF permeate is recycled to mix with the seawater feed stream (Paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the NF permeate recycle system of Aiyrala to the system of Wallace, in order to gain the advantage of controlling the salinity of the feed stream based on how much of the NF permeate is recycled to combine with the seawater feed stream. This modification would result in the recycled NF permeate passing through the pretreatment system and then to the NF system of Wallace.
In the alternative, Wallace (‘099) teaches recycling NF permeate from a downstream NF unit to the first stage NF unit (Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the NF permeate recycle system of Wallace (‘099) to the system of Wallace, in order to gain the advantage of controlling the salinity of the NF feed stream based on how much of the NF permeate is recycled to combine with the feed stream heading into the first NF unit.
With respect to claim 11, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Aiyrala/Wallace (‘099) teaches that the NF system 20 can comprise a first NF unit configured to filter a first portion of sulfate ions to generate the monovalent salt stream (permeate) and a brine stream/”NF stream”, and a third or fourth NF unit configured to filter a second portion of sulfate ions present in the pretreated feed stream to generate divalent salt stream (“PV salt stream”) (see Wallace: Paragraph [0030]), the first portion less than the second portion as the second NF unit if the second NF unit receives that brine stream/NF stream from the first NF unit.
Although Wallace does not specifically teach if the permeate or concentrate stream from the first NF unit would be passed on to the third or fourth NF unit for filtration, the Examiner submits that Wallace teaches passing the concentrate/NF stream onto the second NF unit with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” passing the concentrate/NF stream onto the third or fourth NF unit, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to claim 12, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Aiyrala/Wallace (‘099) teaches that the second NF unit generates a PV filtrate stream which is passed to mineral recovery system 32 comprising a gypsum recovery system 115 which generates gypsum 46 (see Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032, 0037-0039, , wherein the recycle seawater system is configured to generate the recycle seawater stream from the MV salt recycle stream (see rejection of claim 10 above, specifically the modification with Sathrugnan).
With respect to the limitations “gypsum recovery system is configured to direct PV salt to the recycle feedwater system”, these limitations are considered to be met by conduits 38 and 18, which are a part of the “recycle seawater system” with the MV salt reject stream that is recycled via the conduit from RO to NF obtained by the combination of Wallace in view of Sathrugnan; see also, wherein the PV salt recycle stream which is recycled gypsum slurry 160, filtrate 162, and excess concentrated gypsum slurry 170 (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs [0032, 0042-0044]).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Amidala/Wallace (‘099) teaches mineral removal system 32 which is configured to generate a magnesium hydroxide stream and a magnesium chloride stream (Paragraph [0032, 0045-0047, 0058]).
With respect to claim 15, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Ayirala/Wallace (‘099) does not specifically teach that the ratio of the seawater stream and the recycled seawater stream is controllable based on a flow rate threshold associated with the NF system; however, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio of seawater to recycle streams as they are combined to head into the NF system as taught by Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Ayirala/Wallace (‘099), in order to avoid overwhelming the membranes of the NF unit(s).
It has been held that “[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); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). In this case, Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Ayirala/Wallace (‘099) do not specify the workable ranges for the ratio of seawater to recycle streams, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely that the seawater and recycle streams are combined. It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Wallace in view of Sathrugnan and Ayirala/Wallace (‘099).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 22 January 2026