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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a clean water production system” in claim 1.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coolant generation” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification Regardingforming the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 and 6-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-19, throughout many of the claims applicant utilizes passive voice language for method claim recitations, this results in method claims without any clear steps, and therefore claims that are lacking clear metes and bounds. A method claim must use active clear language to set forth clear metes and bounds, a non-exhaustive list includes:
Claim 1 is a single paragraph with no steps set forth, passive language “is powered by” does not amount to a clear step, claim 1 must be amended to clearly set forth steps, utilizing line break indentation to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the method claim. To overcome this rejection and similar language set forth below, applicant should recite for example, “powering the coolant generation by utilizing waste heat in the clean water production system producing the clean water” or similar; and a further clarification as to how this step is achieved, such as “by heat exchange” or similar.
Claim 2 “are recovered” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claim 6 “is enhanced” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claim 7 “is originated” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claim 8 “is enhanced” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claims 15-17 “is utilized” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claim 18 “is optimized” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Claim 19 “is stored” is passive language and there is no clear step set forth as a result.
Regarding claims 3-4, in claim 3, “the feedwater” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the system” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the concept of “the overall efficiency of the cooling generation” lacks clear metes and bounds and the concept of “the overall efficiency” has not been clearly defined.
Regarding claim 6, “the cooling generation” lacks antecedent basis (in claim 1, “coolant generation” is recited).
Regarding claim 8, the concept of “the overall efficiency of the cooling generation” lacks clear metes and bounds and the concept of “the overall efficiency” has not been clearly defined.
Regarding claim 8, “the cooling generation” lacks antecedent basis (in claim 1, “coolant generation” is recited).
Regarding claim 8, “augmented thermal transfer” has unclear metes and bounds and is not clearly defined by the specification. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, “the coolant generation system” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the coolant generation system” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "or another discriminating water purification process" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " or another discriminating water purification process "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 15-17, each claim recites “the cooling” which has unclear antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18-19, in claim 18, “the production of cooling” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the produced coolant thermal energy” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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) 1-4, 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Escribano (US 2009/0045116).
Regarding claim 1, Escribano teaches a method for the production of clean water (title, abstract) ([0050] “brine is pumped to the treatment dryers powered by hot exhaust air from the engine, from where the water vapour is used by condensation in the form of distilled water, eliminating all the liquid residues, obtaining a solid residue that is easily handled and with the possibility of recovery of chemical elements”) and coolant generation where the coolant generation is powered by waste heat from the clean water production system producing the clean water (Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
However due do unclear metes and bounds of claim 1 as set forth above, it is unclear if Escribano teaches all limitations as claimed, however Escribano substantially teaches integration of spray drying evaporators 17 in heat circuit 11/12/13, engine refrigeration cogeneration water 12 exchanging heat in heat exchangers, to obtain distilled water 2 and salts 18 (Fig 1, [0058-0065]), therefore appears to be an obvious modification of Escribano to arrive at the instantly claimed invention without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Escribano teaches salts are recovered 18 (Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Escribano teaches the feedwater to spray drying evaporators 17 originates from RO desalinization plant 1 that produces clean water 2 joined with dryers 7 and water from RO plant 1 to clean water storage 2 (Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
Regarding claim 6-7, Escribano utilizes evaporative cooling by way of sprayers 7/17 and slipstreams of water from high vacuum chambers 14 (Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Escribano teaches coolant generation system is powered by waste heat in heat circuit 11/12/13 which is also used to condensed steam in the clean water production distillation process 14/17 (Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano (US 2009/0045116) as applied above and further in combination with Bronicki et al (US 2002/0178723).
Regarding claims 8-10, Escribano teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Escribano does not teach the cooling generation is enhanced by geothermal energy with heat transfer to a component in the coolant generation system, from subterranean aquifer/deposit.
Bronicki teaches a method and system for producing power and desalination water, Bronicki teaches seawater is heat exchanged with coolant in condenser 28 in geothermal power plant 20, i.e. coolant generation system, and heated seawater provided to desalination plant 40 to make purified drinking water 35, simultaneously geothermal fluid from production well 12 is provided to vaporizer 22 in geothermal power plant 20, i.e. augmented thermal heat transfer of geothermal energy, to supplement power generator 24 of power plant 20, as well as heat exchange in desalination plant 40 (title, abstract, Fig 1, [0016-0017]), the advantage being providing electric power and fresh water in environmentally friendly manner [0002-0004].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to enhance the system of Escribano as taught by Bronicki to augment heat transfer in both coolant generation system, which can be used to provide power, and the desalination system, by utilizing available geothermal energy source as taught by Bronicki to enhance both system of Escribano.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano (US 2009/0045116) as applied above and further in combination with Cioanta et al (US 2017/057843).
Regarding claim 12, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano fails to disclose where multiple qualities of clean water are produced. Cioanta discloses where multiple qualities of clean water are produced (porous membrane /filler technologies are used to produce multiple water quality objectives; paragraph (01551). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Escribano to include multiple clean water qualities as taught by Cioanta in order to properly reintroduce water into the environment.
Regarding claim 13, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano fails to disclose where the multiple qualities of clean water are blended to produce a desired final fluid quality. Cioanta discloses where the multiple qualities of clean water are blended to produce a desired final fluid quality(porous membrane /filter technologies are used to produce multiple water quality objectives ... the specialized tritiated water/heavy water separation cell/unit 320 are designed in such way that allow enough residence time of the mixture of the triliated water/heavy water and normal water/light water 330; paragraphs [0155]. [0205]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Escribano to include mixing multiple qualities of clean water as taught by Cioanta in order to properly reintroduce water into the environment.
Regarding claim 14, discloses all limitations as set forth above and further teaches where reverse osmosis or another discriminating water purification process is used to augment the process of producing a high-quality clean water supply (RO plant 1 before sprayer dryers 7/17 Fig 1, [0058-0065]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano (US 2009/0045116) as applied above and further in combination with Yarosh et al ("Agricultural and Aquacultural Uses of Waste Heat" The Office of Scientific and Technical Information; Article; July 1972, pages 1-47).
Regarding claim 15, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano fails to disclose where the cooling is utilized for agriculture production. Yarosh discloses where the cooling is utilized for agriculture production (the use of pcwer plant waste heat for warming and cooling greenhouses can improve crop growth and yield; page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Escribano to include agriculture uses for waste heat as taught by Yarosh in order to utilize all input energy to the water treatment process.
Regarding claim 16, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano falls to disclose where the cooling is utilized for municipal cooling. Yarosh discloses where the cooling is utilized for municipal cooling (waste heat utilization is being tested in Florida by the Florida Power Corporation to provide power to area consumers [Including cooling]; page [44]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Escribano lo include municipal cooling as taught by Yarosh in order to provide alternative uses of waste heat.
Regarding claim 17, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano fails to disclose where the cooling is utilized for fish farming. Yarosh discloses where the cooling is utilized for fish farming (fish culture facilities near power plants may make use of waste heat to power heating and cooling systems of fish ponds lo allow year-round cultivation; page [381). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Escribano to include fish farm heating and cooling as taught by Yarosh in order to provide year-round fish cultivation.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano (US 2009/0045116) as applied above and further in combination with Mokheimer et al (US 2017/0314466).
Regarding claim 18-19, Escribano discloses all limitations as set forth above however Escribano falls to disclose the claimed optimizing of clean water production versus coolant production based upon time of day and with storage.
Mokheimer teaches a solar assisted desalination, turbine and carbon capture system (title, abstract), Mokheimer teaches total system 700 comprises thermal energy storage system 720 for storage of energy generated by solar cells 718 during the sunny part of the day to be used during the night [0044], where the solar energy power 500 powers CCS 700, along with gas turbine 200 and desalination systems 600 (Fig 1, [0019-0023], Fig 7A, [0041-0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Escribano to include supplemental solar collector and storage systems integrated with the components of Escribano as taught by Mokheimer to time components of the system tied to higher solar energy/lower solar energy parts of the day as suggested by Mokheimer to optimize energy use of the method of Escribano.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liprie (US 2004/0045682) teaches cogen with water purification. Mangin (US 7,073,337) teaches cogen with water purification. Morgan (US 9,377,247) teaches energy storage with thermal systems. Kiaghadi (US 2016/0362309) teaches geothermal energy harvesting. Ackerman (US 10,071,918) cogen with water purification. Mcbay (US 2019/0390660) teaches geothermal energy use. Al-Ghizzy (US 10,676,373) teaches water purification with energy utilization. Kravets (US 11,035,260) teaches thermal energy use systems. Smith (US 11,9474,922) teaches water treatment system. Juranitch (US 11,718,547) teaches water treatment systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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 MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772