DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on April 30, 2024, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because the use of color is improper so either cancel the drawings or provide substitute black and white drawings per MPEP 608.02.VIII. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two or more LSRRO stages connected in parallel as recited in Claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The use of at least the terms Vitec, Avista, and Genesys, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-20 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.
The terms “high” and “low” in Claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “low” are not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, the term “high” renders “pressure” indefinite and the term “low” renders “salt” indefinite.
Claims 2-4 each recites “the LSRRO stage” yet Claim 1 from which all the claims depend recites at least one LSRRO stage making the dependent claims unclear as to which LSRRO stage is referenced.
Claim 9 recites “a scaling ion scavenging stage” yet nothing in the claim or specification provides any definition of what is meant by this limitation. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as anything that can remove inorganic substances from fluids.
The term “low molecular weight” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low molecular weight” is not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, the term “low molecular weight” renders “antiscalant” indefinite.
The terms “high salinity” and “high pressure” in Claim 19 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms high salinity” and “high pressure” are not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, the terms high salinity” and “high pressure” render “fluid” and “feed pump” indefinite, respectively.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 10, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device and a method.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 10, 13, 14, and 18-20, Wang discloses a reverse osmosis system, comprising a feed source input (Fig. 2, §2.2); a high pressure feed pump fluidly connected to the feed source input (Fig. 2, §2.2); and a reverse osmosis (RO) cascade fluidly connected to the high pressure feed pump (Fig. 2), wherein the RO cascade comprises: at least one low salt rejection reverse osmosis (LSRRO) stage including a LSRRO membrane (Fig. 2, §2.2), and a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) stage including a SWRO membrane, fluidly connected to the at least one LSRRO stage (Fig. 2, §6).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: wherein the LSRRO stage further comprises a pump configured to boost the pressure of and to recirculate a portion of a concentrate output by the LSRRO stage to the input of said LSRRO stage (Fig. 2 (note Nth stage pump)). Claim 3: wherein the LSRRO stage further comprises a pressure exchanger configured to recirculate at least a portion of a permeate output by the LSRRO stage to the input of said LSRRO stage or to the SWRO stage (Fig. 2 (note use of pump on permeate 3)). Claim 4: wherein the LSRRO stage further comprises a booster pump configured to boost the pressure of at least a portion of a permeate output by the LSRRO stage to the input of said LSRRO stage or to the SWRO stage (Fig. 2 (note use of pump on permeate 3)) (Fig. 2 (note use of pump on permeate 3)). Claim 10: wherein the SWRO stage comprises the first stage of the RO cascade (Fig. 2, §6 (1st stage interpreted as SWRO)). Claim 13: wherein the at least one LSRRO stage comprises two or more LSRRO stages (Fig. 2). Claim 14: wherein the two or more LSRRO stages are connected in series (Fig. 2). Claim 18: wherein the SWRO is downstream of the at least one LSRRO (Fig. 2 (2nd stage interpreted as SWRO)). Claim 19: a reverse osmosis method, comprising providing the reverse osmosis system of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis above); inputting a high salinity fluid into the feed source input (Fig. 2, §§2.2,4.1); increasing the pressure of the high salinity fluid via the high pressure feed pump (Pg3/§2.2); performing reverse osmosis via the RO cascade (Fig. 2, Pg3/§2.2); and collecting at least one of a concentrate and a permeate (Fig. 2). Claim 20: wherein the reverse osmosis comprises performing at least one low salt rejection reverse osmosis (LSRRO) and a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) (Fig. 2, §§2.2,6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”) in view of Herron, et al., International Publication No. WO2022/178217 (“Herron”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15-17, Wang discloses the system of Claim 1, except wherein the feed source input comprises a feed tank.
Herron also relates to a reverse osmosis system and discloses wherein the feed source input comprises a feed tank (Paragraphs 7, 17 (“Pr)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system disclosed by Wang with the feed tank disclosed by Herron because, according to Herron, the tank allow solution to be fed to the reverse osmosis system (Pr7)
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 15: wherein the two or more LSRRO stages are connected in parallel (Herron, Fig. 2, Pr6,33). Claim 16: at least one permeate storage tank fluidly connected to at least a portion of one or more permeate outlets of the RO cascade (Figs. 1, 2 (note permeate flows to tank)). Claim 17: where the permeate storage tank is fluidly connected to one or more inputs of RO cascade (Figs. 1, 2 (note permeate flows to RO system feed)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”) in view of Cohen, et al., “Upgrading groundwater for irrigation using monovalent selective electrodialysis,” Desalination, 431:126-39, 2018 (“Cohen”).
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
Wang discloses the system of Claim 1 except a monovalent selective electrodialysis (MSED) stage fluidly connected between the feed source and the RO cascade.
Cohen also relates to a reverse osmosis system and discloses a monovalent selective electrodialysis (MSED) stage fluidly connected between the feed source and the RO cascade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reverse osmosis system disclosed by Wang with the MSED disclosed by Cohen because, according to Cohen, the use of MSED allows control over the types of salts removed (§1) while the combination of RO and MSED decreased the amount of detrimental NaCl compared to the use of groundwater and RO alone (§3.5) and proved effective to increase agricultural yields (§4). Further, it would have been obvious to try the limited options of placement for the MSED to arrive at the placement between the feed source and RO cascade.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”) in view of Cohen, et al., “Upgrading groundwater for irrigation using monovalent selective electrodialysis,” Desalination, 431:126-39, 2018 (“Cohen”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Ahdab, et al., “Treating Irrigation Water Using High-Performance Membranes for Monovalent Selective Electrodialysis,” ACS EST Water, 1:117-24, 2021 (“Ahdab”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the combination of Wang and Cohen discloses the system of Claim 6 except wherein the MSED stage comprises an electrodialysis stack of alternating monovalent selective cation exchange membranes (CEM) and monovalent selective anion exchange membranes (AEM).
Ahdab also relates to monovalent selective electrodialysis and discloses wherein the MSED stage comprises an electrodialysis stack of alternating monovalent selective cation exchange membranes (CEM) and monovalent selective anion exchange membranes (AEM) (Page 118/Column 1/Paragraph 4 (“Pg/C/Pr”), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the alternating cation and anion exchange membranes disclosed by Ahdab with the MSED stage disclosed by the combination of Wang and Cohen because, as disclosed by Ahdab, such alternating systems were known in the MSED art (Fig. 1 caption).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 8: wherein an input of the MSED stage includes an input configured to receive raw groundwater of low ion content water (Ahdab (Abstract)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”) in view of Cohen, et al., “Upgrading groundwater for irrigation using monovalent selective electrodialysis,” Desalination, 431:126-39, 2018 (“Cohen”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Lombardi, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2007/0102359 (“Lombardi”).
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
The combination of Wang and Cohen discloses the system of Claim 6 except a scaling ion scavenging stage fluidly connected between the MSED stage and the RO cascade.
Lombardi also relates to a reverse osmosis system and discloses a scaling ion scavenging stage (Pr82,101; see also 112(b) analysis above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the scaling ion scavenging stage disclosed by Lombardi with the MSED stage disclosed by the combination of Wang and Cohen because, according to Lombardi, this allows for the optimization of pure water production (Pr101). Further, it would have been obvious to try the limited options of placement for the scaling ion scavenging stage to arrive at the placement between the MSED stage and RO cascade.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al., “Minimal and zero liquid discharge with reverse osmosis using low-salt-rejection membranes,” Water Research, 170:115317, 2019 (“Wang”) in view of Lombardi, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2007/0102359 (“Lombardi”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Wang discloses the system of Claim 1 except wherein the RO cascade further comprises an antiscalant input fluidly connected to an input of the at least one LSRRO stage.
Lombardi also relates to a reverse osmosis system and discloses an antiscalant input (Pr82,101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the an antiscalant input disclosed by Lombardi with the RO cascade disclosed by the combination of Wang and Cohen because, according to Lombardi, this allows for the optimization of pure water production (Pr101).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 12: wherein the antiscalant comprises a low molecular weight antiscalant (Lombardi, Pr101; see also 112(b) analysis above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights