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 Objections
Claims 3 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 refers to “one or several spires” in lines 3-4, but the antecedent in claim 2 to which it depends uses the term “spiral;” these terms should be made consistent for clarity.
Claim 5 refers to sheltering “in the discharge loops pf spiral configuration” in line 4. From context it appears this should be the word “of,” although for clearer reading it may be more appropriately written “loops of the spiral configuration” to clearly connect to the antecedent in claim 2 to which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Avero (US 6,579,451 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Avero teaches a one-way pressure exchange device for desalination plants by reverse osmosis in the form of a feed chamber employing paired discharge loops to allow for continuous pressure exchange [Abs]. An exemplary embodiment [Fig. 22] includes the following elements [Col. 8, lines 27-53]:
PNG
media_image1.png
699
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A first selecting valve (61) providing alternative entrance to the discharge loops (205), (205’), connected at the inlet side thereof, and collecting reject brine at its inlet (225) from an RO membrane (204);
A second selecting valve (61’) on the outlet side of the discharge loops, and connected at its outlet (221) to discharge the brine to the environment;
First (213) and second (213’) non-return valves (see also [Figs. 25-26]) connected to a low-pressure seawater inlet (201’), mounted downstream (in a flow direction and relative to its flow path) of the first selecting valve, and thereby providing a source of low-pressure seawater to the first and second loops; and,
Third (214) and fourth (214’) (see [Figs. 25-26]) non-return valves connected to the ends of the first and second discharge loops, and connected to discharge high-pressure seawater via a bypass line (223) to feed the RO membrane [Fig. 22].
Further, the phase of the valves is arranged in a crossed manner [Figs. 25-26] in terms of flow connection such that, when the first valve is admitting brine into the first loop, it is discharging seawater from the first loop, and the second loop is loading seawater and discharging brine [Col. 10 lines 19-61].
The arrangement taught by Avero is understood to anticipate the claimed invention, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image2.png
691
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the various embodiments preferably employ generally toroidal circuits [Abs] with at least some curved sections which, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may represent spiral configurations absent clarification of the specific requirements. More specifically, Avero teaches embodiments which depict fully-curved circuits and which loop back to have entrance and exit on the same general side; even if such limitation (similar to instant Fig. 3) is considered a requirement of the term spiral, it would nevertheless be anticipated by the embodiments of Avero [Figs. 15-16, Col. 7 lines 27-51]. In general, Avero contemplates “The chamber described hereunder is ring-shaped, so that the start and the end of the tube are connected and thus form a closed circuit, the tube being toroidal, continuous zigzag, helicoidal or otherwise shaped, no matter how whimsical or functional, the sole condition being that its start and end are connected to form a loop or closed ring circuit.” [Col. 1 lines 35-41].
With respect to claim 3, as above, Avero teaches embodiments e.g. [Figs. 15-16] in which the circuit loops all the way back to start and end (i.e. inlet and outlet) at generally the same side; absent clarification, this may be understood to represent a coil; further, in general, the system employs multiple loops to allow for continuous operation i.e. first and second circuits as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Avero teaches embodiments [Fig. 22] in which the valve structures are all sheltered within the toroidal circuit sections; absent clarification of the specific shape and positioning, this is considered sufficient to meet the claim requirements.
With respect to claim 6, Avero discusses embodiments which employ rotating baskets and corresponding spheres to function as the selection valves [Col. 1 lines 58-Col. 2 line 3, Fig. 1].
Claims 2-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avero.
With respect to claims 2, 3, and 5, see the discussion above; if the shapes taught by Avero are not considered sufficient to anticipate the claim limitations, Avero nevertheless teaches broad flexibility regarding the generally-toroidal configuration of the circuits: “The chamber described hereunder is ring-shaped, so that the start and the end of the tube are connected and thus form a closed circuit, the tube being toroidal, continuous zigzag, helicoidal or otherwise shaped, no matter how whimsical or functional, the sole condition being that its start and end are connected to form a loop or closed ring circuit.” [Col. 1 lines 35-41].
See also MPEP 2144.04 IV.B; changes in shape are obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. In view of these considerations, the claim systems are at minimum obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the systems disclosed by Avero.
With respect to claim 4, Avero teaches as above but is silent to the curvature radius of the discharge loop. However, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A; changes in size and proportion are obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
See additionally 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).” Avero discusses the length (and therefore implicitly the radius of curvature) of the circuits [Col. 8 lines 17-26] with respect to certain embodiments, and its impact on the performance of the system e.g. load loss, timing requirements and the like; as such, even if it is presumed that there is criticality to the radius of curvature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have proper motivation to optimize the dimensions in view of Avero’s disclosure of the general conditions of the claim and identification of result-effective behavior.
As such, the claimed system and its radius of curvature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the disclosed systems of Avero.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avero in view of Baumgarten et al (US PGPub 2006/0054223 A1).
See the discussion of Avero above. If the rotating basket arrangement is not considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the rotating selecting valves, see Baumgarten; alternative configurations of rotating valves are nevertheless known in the art as useful for RO systems. Baumgarten teaches rotating valves for control of pressure exchangers [Abs] which provide various benefits such as optimized pressure loading, approximately continuous volume flows and pressure ratios, and simplified sealing arrangements [0015-0017, 0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement these into the system of Avero in order to facilitate efficient, continuous flows even while switching the circuit configurations.
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