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 1-15 are pending.
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCormack et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0223958), hereinafter “McCormack”.
With respect to claims 1-3, McCormack teaches a method for removing salts and minerals (“one or more contaminants”) from water (see Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing seawater 11 (“a contaminated water mixture”) and one or more guest compounds embodied as cyclopentane gas (Paragraph [0035]);
forming clathrate ice (a gas “hydrate complex”) comprising water and the cyclopentane (“one or more guest compounds” that is a “hydrocarbon”) (Paragraphs [0035-0037]); and
separating the water from the cyclopentane/guest compounds via melting to provide fresh water from which salts have been removed (containing “less contaminant”) (Paragraphs [0044, 0045]).
With respect to claim 4, McCormack teaches recycling the cyclopentane (“guest
compounds”) after melting the separated clathrate crystals (see Paragraphs [0044, 0045]).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the method of claim 4 wherein the recycling the guest compounds comprises heating to liberate the cyclopentane as a gas (“thermally expanding the guest compounds”) to provide a cooling source to a chiller 15 (“a heat exchanger”) (Paragraph [0036]), wherein the chiller comprises a condenser or compressor which compresses the cyclopentane guest compound (which is also compressed by pump 16). The contents of crystallizer 10 are chilled (Paragraph [0035]), therefore the thermally expanded cyclopentane is a cooling source.
With respect to claim 7, McCormack further teaches that prior to separating the
water from the guest compounds, the clathrate crystals are removed from the crystallizer containing the seawater (“contaminated water”) (Paragraph [0044]; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, McCormack teaches melting the separated clathrate crystals to separate the water from cyclopentane guest compound (see Paragraphs [0044, 0045]), which is considered to be consistent with how “dissociation” is discussed as heating the solid hydrate in Paragraph [0027] of the published Specification).
With respect to claim 9, McCormack teaches that the contaminated water mixture comprises seawater and that the one or more guest compounds is cyclopentane (“comprises a refrigerant” as consistent with how “refrigerant” is defined in Paragraph [0023] of the published Specification) (see McCormack: Paragraphs [0025, 0035, 0036]).
With respect to claims 11-13, McCormack teaches a mixture within crystallizer 10 which comprises seawater (“water”) with salt contaminants (“at least one contaminant”); and a clathrate/gas hydrate comprising a gas hydrate complex including water and one or more guest compounds including cyclopentane (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0035]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simmons et al. (U.S. Patent # 7560028), hereinafter “Simmons”.
With respect to claims 11-14, Simmons teaches a mixture comprising seawater (“a liquid component comprising water and one or more salts/contaminants”); and a solid component embodied as clathrate hydrates which are a hydrate complex with water and 1,1-fluoroethane (“a fluorocarbon/guest compound”) (see (Abstract; Column 3, lines 21-36; Column 4, lines 7-46; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormack et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0223958), hereinafter “McCormack”.
With respect to claim 10, McCormack teaches that the contaminated water mixture
comprises seawater (Paragraph [0035]). McCormack and the one or more guest compounds comprises cyclopentane in the embodiment disclosed in Paragraph [0035]), but additionally teaches that the one or more guest compounds can comprise CO2 (Paragraphs [0024, 0049, 0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at modify cyclopentane by replacing with CO2 or with addition of CO2, as McCormack teaches in the general embodiment that the gases that are used to form the clathrate/gas hydrate include CO2 as well as cyclopentane and their gaseous mixtures, which strongly suggests that the six example gases that include CO2 and cyclopentane disclosed in Paragraphs [0024, 0049, 0050] are equivalent in the process of forming a clathrate/gas hydrate.
With respect to claim 15, McCormack teaches a mixture within crystallizer 10 which comprises seawater (“water”) with salt contaminants (“at least one contaminant”); and a clathrate/gas hydrate comprising a gas hydrate complex including water and one or more guest compounds including cyclopentane (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0035]). McCormack additionally teaches that the one or more guest compounds can comprise CO2 (Paragraphs [0024, 0049, 0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at modify cyclopentane by replacing with CO2 or with addition of CO2, as McCormack teaches in the general embodiment that the gases that are used to form the clathrate/gas hydrate include CO2 as well as cyclopentane and their gaseous mixtures, which strongly suggests that the six example gases that include CO2 and cyclopentane disclosed in Paragraphs [0024, 0049, 0050] are equivalent in the process of forming a clathrate/gas hydrate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormack et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0223958) in view of Simmons et al. (U.S. Patent # 7560028), hereinafter “McCormack” and “Simmons”.
With respect to claim 14, McCormack does not specifically teach that the clathrate-forming gas comprises a fluorocarbon.
Simmons teaches 1,1-fluoroethane (“a fluorocarbon”) (Column 3, lines 21-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace cyclopentane with 1,1-fluoroethane (“a fluorocarbon”) as taught by Simmons or to add 1,1-fluoroethane (“a fluorocarbon”) of Simmons to cyclopentane as taught by McCormack to form a gaseous mixture, as McCormack teaches that the gas used to form the clathrate can be embodied as other known gases or mixtures thereof for clathrate formation, and because Simmons teaches that 1,1-fluoroethane (“a fluorocarbon”) helps to prevent brine entrapment during hydrate crystal growth formation (Column 3, lines 10-14, 32-36).
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 06 October 2026
