DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on March 9, 2026 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-8 of the Remarks, filed 23 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15, 17, and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-15, 17, and 19-20 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendment as set forth in detail below.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimel, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10287201 B2 ("Heimel"), in view of, Cote, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20140231359 A1 ("Cote"), Ganzi, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10213744 B2 ("Ganzi"), “Improvement of coagulation efficiency using instantaneous flash mixer (IFM) for water treatment.” Byun, et al ("Byun"), in further view of International Publication No. JP H05279009 A ("Yoda"). The machine translation for Yoda is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Heimel teaches a water treatment system (purified water, Heimel, column 2, line 9-12), the system has a pretreatment subsystem (pretreated, Heimel, column 5, line 30-31) which includes a first stream that contains a dissolved potassium species (Total dissolved solids which include potassium, Heimel, column 4, line 14-17); a first mixing chamber (manifold 80, Heimel, column 16, line 35-37) configured to mix the first stream (water 518, Heimel, column 23, line 34-38) with a second stream (acidiity-adjusted using stream 512, Heimel, column 23, line 42-47), the mixing chamber (manifold 80, Heimel, column 16, line 35-37) comprising an outlet for a third stream (blend being passed as stream 26, Heimel, column 16, line 35-37), and a solids-liquid separator (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) fluidly connected to the outlet of the first mixing chamber (manifold 80, Heimel, column 16, line 35-37), the solids-liquid separator (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) and a controller configured to regulate dilution of the pretreated stream with the wastewater to render substantially equal saturation levels (the water treatment system is provided with a plurality of sensors to monitor the quality of the water in-between the process steps, e.g., the pretreated water stream, Heimel, column 14, line 53-57) in the diluted pretreated stream (control parameters for one or more process steps, Heimel, column 14, line 53-57).
Heimel does not teach the wastewater including sodium hexafluorosilicate, solids-liquid separator configured to separate K2SiF6 as a precipitate from the third stream, and produce a pretreated and a second mixing chamber configured to dilute the pretreated stream with the wastewater from a source of the wastewater to produce a diluted pretreated stream.
Cote teaches wastewater including sodium hexafluorosilicate (sodium fluorosilicate, Cote, paragraph 8), solids-liquid separator configured to separate K2SiF6 as a precipitate from the third stream (a mixture of sodium fluorosilicate and calcium fluorosilicate, or a mixture of sodium fluorosilicate, calcium fluorosilicate and potassium fluorosilicate, Cote, paragraph 34, Figure 2) where (solids may optionally be removed, for example by settling, after calcium removal step 130, Cote, paragraph 58, Figure 2)and produce a pretreated and a second mixing chamber (calcium removal step 130, Cote, paragraph 58, Figure 2).
Ganzi teaches a second mixing chamber (mixer 308, Ganzi, column 16, line 55-61) configured to dilute the pretreated stream with wastewater from a source of wastewater to produce a diluted pretreated stream (Ganzi, column 16, line 55-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the water treatment process of Heimel and add the solids-liquid separator of Cote configured to separate K2SiF6 as a precipitate because the limitation of Cote can improve cost-effectiveness (Cote, Paragraph 7) and adding the sodium fluorosilicate creates anti-caking and fluidity-improving agent (Yoda, paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the water treatment process of Heimel and Cote, and add the second mixing chamber of Ganzi because coagulation is a universal process for treating drinking water. Coagulation is an economical cost-saving technique. Coagulation is important for removing unwanted particles, natural organic matter and infectious microorganisms in water. mixers improve the effectiveness of coagulation resulting in reduction of cost and power consumption (byun, Abstract).
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimel, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10287201 B2 ("Heimel"), in view of, Cote, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20140231359 A1 ("Cote"), Ganzi, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10213744 B2 ("Ganzi"), “Improvement of coagulation efficiency using instantaneous flash mixer (IFM) for water treatment.” Byun, et al ("Byun"), International Publication No. JP H05279009 A ("Yoda"), International Publication No. CN 110981061 A ("Luo"), in further view of, “Multi-Stage Filtration.” Sanchez, et al ("Sanchez"). The machine translation for Luo and Yoda are used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding claim 2, paragraphs 9 through 15 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 1. The combination of references disclose where the filtration subsystem has a first filtration unit (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) having an inlet fluidly connected to an outlet of the pretreatment subsystem and configured to receive the pretreated stream, the first filtration unit (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) configured to separate the pretreated stream into a first effluent stream (permeate 66, Heimel, column 16, line 56-58) and a first reject stream (retentate streams 56, Heimel, column 16, line 61-64), the first effluent stream (permeate 66, Heimel, column 16, line 56-58) having a lesser particulate concentration than the pretreated stream ( column 16, line 56-64); a second filtration unit (membrane module 44, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) downstream of the first filtration unit (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) and configured to receive the first effluent stream (permeate 66, Heimel, column 16, line 56-58) and separate the first effluent stream into a second effluent stream (permeate 48, Heimel, column 16, line 58-61) and a second reject stream (retentate streams 58, Heimel, column 16, line 61-64), the second effluent stream having a lower concentration of multivalent ions than the first effluent stream (Heimel, column 16, line 56-64);
The combination of references does not teach a third filtration unit downstream of the second filtration unit and configured to receive the second effluent stream and filter the second effluent stream to form a third effluent stream having a concentration of dissolved solids lower than a concentration of dissolved solids in the second effluent stream.
Lou teaches and a third filtration (second reverse osmosis membrane 3, Luo, Pr 24) unit downstream of the second filtration unit (first reverse osmosis membrane 2, Luo, Pr 24) and configured to receive the second effluent stream and filter the second effluent stream to form a third effluent stream having a concentration of dissolved solids lower than a concentration of dissolved solids in the second effluent stream (Luo, Pr 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the water treatment process of Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi with the water treatment process of Luo because multi-stage filtration reduces the cost systems (Sanchez, section 1, pg 6) and improves water quality through multiple stages of filtering (Sanchez, section 6, pg 33).
Regarding claim 3, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a conduit configured to return the first reject stream (Retentate recycle 526, Heimel, column 23, line 58-60) to a source of the first stream (Clarified water 516, Heimel, column 23, line 49-51).
Regarding claim 4, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a conduit configured to return the second reject stream (Retentate recycle 534, Heimel,Table 4, Figure 6) to a source of the first stream (Clarified water 516, Heimel, column 23, line 49-51).
Regarding claim 5, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a source of pH adjustment agent (pH adjustment 332, Heimel, column 20, line 62-65) configured to dose the first effluent stream (feedstream 316, Heimel, column 20, line 62-65) with the pH adjustment agent (pH adjustment 332, Heimel, column 20, line 62-65).
Regarding claim 6, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a source of antiscalant (antiscalant, Heimel, column 11, line 25-29) configured to dose the first effluent stream with the antiscalant (Heimel, column 11, line 25-29).
Regarding claim 7, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a third filtration unit that includes a reverse osmosis unit (second reverse osmosis membrane 3, Luo, Pr 24).
Regarding claim 8, paragraph 25 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 7. The combination of references discloses one or more reverse osmosis units includes a first reverse osmosis unit (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) configured to separate the second effluent stream into a first permeate stream (permeate 66, Heimel, column 16, line 56-58) and a first retentate stream (retentate streams 56, Heimel, column 16, line 61-64).
Regarding claim 9, paragraph 26 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 8. The combination of references discloses a second filtration unit which includes a nanofilter (membrane module 44, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) Heimel teaches that the reverse osmosis module includes reverse osmosis/nanofiltrate membranes (Heimel, column 26, line 7-8).
Regarding claim 10, paragraph 27 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 9. The combination of references discloses a conduit configured to direct the first retentate stream into an inlet of the nanofilter (membrane module 44, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11).
Regarding claim 11, paragraph 26 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 8. The combination of references discloses one or more reverse osmosis units (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) further includes a second reverse osmosis unit (membrane module 44, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11) configured to separate the first permeate stream (permeate 66, Heimel, column 16, line 56-58) into a second permeate stream (permeate 48, Heimel, column 16, line 58-61) and a second retentate stream (retentate streams 58, Heimel, column 16, line 61-64).
Regarding claim 12, paragraph 29 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 11. The combination of references discloses a second permeate stream is the third effluent stream (first reverse osmosis membrane 2 permeate stream is the inlet of the second reverse osmosis membrane 3, Luo, Pr 24).
Regarding claim 13, paragraph 29 in the office action discusses the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 11. The combination of references discloses a conduit configured to direct the second retentate stream (Retentate recycle 534, Heimel,Table 4, Figure 6) into an inlet of the first reverse osmosis unit (Clarified water 516, Heimel, column 23, line 49-51) along with the first permeate stream (Heimel, column 23, line 34-62).
Regarding claim 14, paragraphs 16 through 20 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, Ganzi, and Luo, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 2. The combination of references discloses a first filtration unit includes an ultrafilter (membrane module 42, Heimel, column 16, line 8-11). Heimel teaches membrane purification system that is used in the method may include ultrafiltration membranes, reverse osmosis membranes, or a combination of the two, in any order (Clarified water 516, Heimel, column 23, line 49-51).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimel, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10287201 B2 ("Heimel"), in view of, Cote, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20140231359 A1 ("Cote"), Ganzi, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10213744 B2 ("Ganzi"), “Improvement of coagulation efficiency using instantaneous flash mixer (IFM) for water treatment.” Byun, et al ("Byun"), International Publication No. JP H05279009 A ("Yoda"), in further view of, “Removal of potassium chloride from ion-exchanged solution containing potassium clavulanate by diafiltration with nanomembrane and its modeling.” Kim, et al ("Kim"). The machine translation for Yoda is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding claim 15, paragraphs 9 through 15 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 1. The combination of references disclose teaches a first stream. The combination of references does not disclose a first stream comprises KCl at a concentration in a range of from 0.07 mol/L to 0.2 mol/L.
Kim teaches a first stream comprises KCl at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L (KCL concentration is added at different concentrations, Kim, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the water treatment process of Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi and add KCL of Kim because Kim teaches that KCL is added to the feed (kim, section 3.3 Diafiltration experiments) and can be removed effectively by nanofiltration (Kim, Abstract) in which Heimel teaches as a method of filtration.
Claims 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimel, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10287201 B2 ("Heimel"), in view of, Cote, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20140231359 A1 ("Cote"), Ganzi, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10213744 B2 ("Ganzi"), “Improvement of coagulation efficiency using instantaneous flash mixer (IFM) for water treatment.” Byun, et al ("Byun"), in further view of International Publication No. JP H05279009 A ("Yoda"). The machine translation for Yoda is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding claim 17, paragraphs 9 through 15 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 1. The combination of references discloses a particle filter (filter, Heimel, column 2, line 43-44) disposed in fluid communication between the source of wastewater (produced water 508, column 23, line 34-38) and an inlet of the second mixing chamber (mixer 308, Ganzi, column 16, line 55-61).
Regarding claim 19, paragraphs 9 through 15 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 1. The combination of references discloses a system further comprises a controller configured to regulate dilution of the pretreated stream (the water treatment system is provided with a plurality of sensors to monitor the quality of the water in-between the process steps, e.g., the pretreated water stream, Heimel, column 14, line 53-57) with the wastewater to render the diluted pretreated stream with concentrations of K2SiF6 and Na2SiF6 (a mixture of sodium fluorosilicate and calcium fluorosilicate, or a mixture of sodium fluorosilicate, calcium fluorosilicate and potassium fluorosilicate, Cote, paragraph 34, Figure 2) having substantially equal potentials for depositing scale in the second filtration unit (plurality of sensors to monitor the quality of the water in-between the process steps, Heimel, column 14, line 53-57).
Regarding claim 20, paragraphs 9 through 15 in the office action discuss the references from Heimel, Cote, and Ganzi, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of claim 1. The combination of references discloses a particle filters (filter, Heimel, column 2, line 43-44) fluidically disposed at least one of upstream of the pretreatment subsystem or between the pretreatment subsystem and the filtration subsystem (pretreatment, Heimel, column 2, line 43-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
