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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 12-16, in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleiffarth (US 2015/0360971) in view of Kenet (US 2003/0132095), hereafter referred to as Kenet, and Sears (US 5,968,321).
With regard to claim 12: Schleiffarth teaches a method of treating contaminated water (abstract, Figure 1), the method comprising:
Preheating a contaminated water stream 104/112 using heat from a treated water stream 124 in heat exchanger 123 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Adding the preheated contaminated water stream 122 to a circulation stream 130/132/134 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Pressurizing the circulation stream with pump 128 and adding heat to the circulation stream with heat exchanger 136 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Dropping the pressure of the circulation stream using evaporation unit 141 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Separating steam from liquid in the circulation stream using evaporation unit 141 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Compressing the steam using compressor 142 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
And outputting the treated water stream 124 from the circulation stream (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
Schleiffarth does not explicitly teach that the method being one which involves a biologically contaminated water stream, and wherein the method amounts to one of harvesting water from a microorganism in said biologically contaminated water steam.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Schleiffarth is suitable for use in treating such a natural salt water source such as ocean water or seawater. Such natural water sources are necessarily biologically contaminated, i.e. they are contaminated with some amount of microorganisms. Accordingly, if the method of Schleiffarth were practiced on seawater or the like, the contaminated water stream would be a biologically contaminated water stream, and the method would involve harvesting water from a microorganism in said biologically contaminated water steam.
It is well-known in the art to use methods like that of Schleiffarth to treat seawater of the like in order to obtain distilled water and/or concentrated seawater therefrom. For example, Kenet teaches a method of water treatment similar to that of Schleiffarth, wherein said method is used to treat seawater to yield distilled water 80 and concentrated seawater (brine) 86 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0027], [0048]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schleiffarth in view of Kenet by using seawater or the like as the contaminated water stream, in order to obtain distilled water and concentrated seawater therefrom. Because seawater is necessarily biologically contaminated, the contaminated water stream (seawater) in the method of Schleiffarth modified in view of Kenet is a biologically contaminated water stream, and the method involves harvesting water from a microorganism in said biologically contaminated water steam.
Modified Schleiffarth is silent to “reintroducing the steam into the circulation stream”.
However, it is known in the art to recycle steam from an evaporator into the feed stream thereto. For example, Sears teaches a system for treating contaminated water (abstract, Column 1 Lines 5-10), the system comprising: an evaporator 21 configured to receive a contaminated water stream (feed), a blower (compressor) 57 configured to receive steam from the evaporator 21 and compress the steam, and a steam stripper/degasser 49 configured to introduce a portion of the compressed steam from the blower 57 (i.e. a portion that is not condensed in condenser core 22) into the contaminated water stream (feed) so as to remove non-condensable gasses from the contaminated water (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 55-Column 4 Line 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schleiffarth in view of Sears by adding a step of degassing Schleiffarth, wherein said step of degassing involves reintroducing a portion of the compressed steam into the contaminated water stream, and thus into the circulation stream, in order to remove non-condensable gasses from the contaminated water.
With regard to claim 13: The circulation stream 130/132/134 is pressurized between the separating of the steam from the liquid and the adding of the preheated biologically contaminated water stream 122 to the circulation stream 130/132/134, i.e. the circulation steam is pressurized by the pump 128 after the preheated biologically contaminated water stream 122 is added to the circulation stream 130/132/134 and before the separating of the steam from the liquid in evaporation unit 141, and thus between the separating and the adding (Schleiffarth: Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
With regard to claim 14: Modified Schleiffarth comprises adding additional heat to the circulation stream 130/132/134using heat exchanger 136 after adding the preheated biologically contaminated water stream 122 to the circulation stream 130/132/134 (Schleiffarth: Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0046]).
With regard to claim 15: Modified Schleiffarth does not explicitly teach extracting a liquid stream from the steam prior to compressing the steam and adding the liquid stream to the circulation stream.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a step amounts to filtering the steam through a demister to remove entrained liquid prior to compressing said steam. Such filtering of steam with a demister is well-known in the art. For example, Sears teaches a demister 56 positioned between evaporator manifold 39 and compressor 57 (Figure 1,Column 3 Line 55-Column 4 Line 20).
A person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that it is advantageous to position a demister between an evaporator and a compressor which receives and compresses vapor generated in the evaporator. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that positioning a demister as such will remove any liquid droplets from the vapor stream, which: 1) prevents such liquid droplets from entering the compressor and causing damage thereto, and 2) prevents impure liquid droplets from making their way into the purified product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schleiffarth in view of Sears filtering the steam through a demister to remove entrained liquid prior to compressing said steam, thereby extracting a liquid stream from the steam prior to compressing the steam and adding the liquid stream to the circulation stream, in order to: 1) prevent such entrained liquid from entering the blower and causing damage thereto, and 2) prevent such entrained liquid from making their way into the purified product.
With regard to claim 16: Modified Schleiffarth is silent to the steam being reintroduced to the circulation stream prior to pressurizing the circulation stream.
However, whether or not the steam introduction occurs upstream or downstream of the pressurizing is merely a matter of design choice. Furthermore, introduction of the steam upstream of the pressurizing would be expected to be workable in Schleiffarth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schleiffarth by reintroducing the steam to the circulation stream prior to the pressurizing, in order to obtain a predictably workable method.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,012,339.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘339 patent are drawn to an apparatus, the operation of which suggests the presently claimed method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections were overcome, and claim 12 were amended to recite --reintroducing all of the steam into the circulation stream-- in place of “reintroducing the steam into the circulation stream” in line 9.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Schleiffarth (US 2015/0360971) in view of Sears (US 5,968,321) as described in the 103 rejection of claim 12 set forth above.
The combination of Schleiffarth and Sears does not teach or fairly suggest a method comprising a step of -- reintroducing all of the steam into the circulation stream--. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schleiffarth or Sears, alone or in combination, so as to be configured to return all of the steam formed in the flash vessel back into the flash vessel. There is not prior art of record which cures this deficiency of Schleiffarth and Sears.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772