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 1-16 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1A (all dark grey text, also any text that might be in the three darker bars to the left in the middle), 1B (all dark grey text, also any text that might be in the three darker bars to the left in the middle), 2 (all text, especially tables), 3 (all text, especially tables), 4 (all text, especially tables), 7 (all text, especially tables), and 9-12 (all text) contain unreadable text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, the limitation “second state nano filtration” in line 8 should be recited as “second stage nano filtration process” (emphases added), and within line 13 of claim 1, the limitation “rejects” should be recited as “reject”; regarding claim 3, the limitations “CaCo3 and Mg SO4” should be recited as “CaCO3 and MgSO4” (emphasis added and no space in MgSO4); regarding claim 5, the limitation “bring” in line 1 should be recited as “brine”; regarding claim 9, the limitation “second state nano filtration” in line 8 should be recited as “second stage nano filtration process” and within line 13 of claim 9, the limitation “rejects” should be recited as “reject”; regarding claim 11, the limitations “CaCo3 and Mg SO4” should be recited as “CaCO3 and MgSO4” (emphasis added and no space in MgSO4); regarding claim 13, the limitation “bring” in line 1 should be recited as “brine”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the limitation “the brine concentrate stream” (line 9) renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner whether this refers to the brine concentrate stream from the second stage nano filtration process or the third stage nano filtration process. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider “the brine concentrate stream” (line 9) as referring to “a brine concentrate stream from the third nano filtration process” as consistent with Fig. 1A, B and Paragraphs [0063, 0064] of the Specification.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the limitation “the brine concentrate stream” (line 10) renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner whether this refers to the brine concentrate stream from the second stage nano filtration process or the third stage nano filtration process. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider “the brine concentrate stream” (line 9) as referring to “a brine concentrate stream from the third nano filtration process” as consistent with Fig. 1A, B and Paragraphs [0063, 0064] of the Specification.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the limitations “a pressure greater than osmotic pressure” render the claims indefinite, as it is unclear whether osmotic pressure is measured specifically with respect to the semipermeable membrane of the forward osmosis system, or to a different semipermeable membrane. Clarification is respectfully requested.
With continued reference to claims 1 and 9, the limitation “the mixed stream” in line 16 of claims 1 and 9 renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner whether this refers to “the first mixed stream” or a different mixed stream. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the mixed stream” as referring to “the first mixed stream”.
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitation “second osmosis system” (line 25 of claim 1) renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner whether this refers to “the second reverse osmosis system” or a different osmosis system. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the second osmosis system” as referring to “the second reverse osmosis system”.
With continued reference to claims 1 and 9, the terms “low pressure” and “high pressure” (line 21 of claim 1 and line 22 of claim 9) are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “low pressure” and “high pressure” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “low pressure” on the dilute side as a pressure that is lower than the pressure on the feed side, and “high pressure” on the feed side as a pressure that is higher than the pressure on the dilute side.
With respect to claims 4 and 12, the limitations “before reaching supersaturation” render the claims indefinite, as it is unclear whether the supersaturation refers to some or all of the divalent ions that could be present, which could be numerous. Clarification is respectfully requested.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, the limitation “the initial brine stream” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the limitation “the evaporator” renders the claims indefinite, as “the evaporator” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language. Applicant may which to change the claim dependency for claim 8 to claim 5 and the claim dependency of claim 16 to claim 13 to alleviate this rejection.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed pending resolution of the objections to the Drawlings, the claim objections, and rejections set forth under 35 USC 112(b) above, as none of the prior art teaches or suggests the methods for brine concentration and water recovery as recited in claims 1 and 9. The Examiner thanks Applicant for citing the closest prior art.
The Examiner acknowledges the following references which are relevant to the claimed invention, but which fall short of disclosing the same:
Atlaee et al. (Desalination, 2013, 326, 19-29), cited by Applicant, which discloses forward osmosis pretreatment of seawater for thermal desalination processes including Multi-Effect Distillation and Multi Stage Flashing (see Abstract); however, Atlaee teaches away from conducting nanofiltration in combination with the disclosed process (see Page 20, left column, last three paragraphs of Introduction Section), and Atlaee does not disclose reverse osmosis or recovery of pressure energy as claimed;
Ahilan (WO 2007/132477), cited by Applicant, discloses a pretreatment process for saline water feeds comprising nanofiltration to remove at least 85% of divalent ions per pass, from which permeate is then passed through a 3-stage reverse osmosis desalination to produce fresh water, wherein the concentrated brine is treated via electrolysis which allows for zero discharge. Ahilan teaches that integration with multi-stage flash distillation would provide high purity, low conductivity water suitable for electrolysis ((see Abstract); however, this would replace the reverse osmosis system as the step before electrolysis (see Page2, Paragraphs 1 and 2). The ordinary artisan would not have combined the teachings of Atlaee and Ahilan to arrive at the claimed invention, because Atlaee teaches away from conducting nanofiltration in combination with the disclosed process even when divalent ions were removed by nanofiltration (see Page 20, left column, last three paragraphs of Introduction Section), and such a combination would still fail to disclose reverse osmosis or recovery of pressure energy as claimed.
Aly et al. (Desalination, 2022, 521, 115388), cited by Applicant, discloses Multi Effect Distillation – Absorber compressor for seawater desalination; however, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and forward osmosis are not disclosed as steps preceding the Multi Effect Distillation – Absorber compressor for seawater desalination, as required by claim 9.
Ahmed et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0170338) teaches a hybrid membrane system for brine concentration and desalination (see Abstract) which includes nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and forward osmosis (see Abstract); wherein the feed side of the forward osmosis unit receives a mixture of RO reject and permeate from a nanofiltration unit (see Paragraphs [0011-0013]); however, Ahmed does not teach either a second reverse osmosis system or Multi Effect Distillation – Absorber compressor unit coupled to the osmotic membrane of the forward osmosis unit, or recovering pressure energy as required by claims 1 and 9, or a second and third nanofiltration stage as required by claims 1 and 9.
Alamoudi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0308037) discloses one nanofiltration unit, two reverse osmosis units, and three hollow fiber forward osmosis units (See Claim 1); however, Alamoudi does not teach a second or third nanofiltration stage, does not teach that the hollow fiber forward osmosis unit receives a first mixture as claimed, and the second reverse osmosis unit is not coupled to the hollow fiber membrane forward osmosis units to achieve the recited pressure differential between the specific streams in the first mixed stream as required by claims 1 and 9, with first and second pressure energy recoveries as recited in claims 1 and 9, and does not disclose Multi Effect Distillation – Absorber compressor as recited in claim 9.
Aboukhlewa et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0240624) discloses a hybrid desalination system comprising a reverse osmosis system, forward osmosis system, and multi-effect distillation system with pressure energy recovery (see Abstract; Paragraphs [0017-0026]); however, Aboukhlewa does not disclose a first, second, or third nanofiltration stage and cannot disclose the recited pressure differential within the forward osmosis stage, as the forward osmosis system of Aboukhlewa does not receive the first mixed stream as recited in claims 1 and 9, and does not teach a second reverse osmosis stage or Multi Effect Distillation – Absorber compressor stage or recovery of a second pressure energy as recited in claims 1 and 9.
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 15 July 2026
Prosecution Insights