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 .
Response to Arguments / Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/23/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/23/26 (see arguments 7/23/26 P9).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102, applicant argues that the Office has not provided evidence to support the contention that produced water was a well-known source of raw water for distillation treatment (see arguments 7/23/26 P9). In response, the Examiner offers Aguinaldo et al (US 11,097,203), previously cited on for PTO-892, as evidence, Aguinaldo is directed to a low energy ejector desalination system (title, abstract), Aguinaldo recites “The present disclosure generally relates to treatment and desalination of seawater, produced water, and other high salinity water” (C1:L13-15), therefore seawater and produced water were well-understood as types of higher salinity water that may be treated in ejector-based desalination system equally with the expected result of desalination. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 will be updated for amendment and official notice rebuttal procedure, see MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 9, as amended applicant argues Popov does not teach the concentrated salt solution is transferred to an oilfield operation (arguments 7/23/26 P9), this is found persuasive, however the narrowed claim requires updated search and consideration and a new rejection, necessitated by amendment will be made.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 of independent claims 10 and 15, over Zeitoun, applicant argues that claims 10 and 15, as amended, now requiring the concept of forming a first condensate stream, then introducing a liquid motive fluid to a first eductor and thereby draw the first condensate stream into the first eductor and mix the first condensate stream and the liquid motive fluid within the first eductor in the overall processes of treating a salt solution is not taught or fairly suggested by Zeitoun or any of the further prior art of record is found persuasive (see arguments 7/23/26 P10). This is found persuasive, therefore the claim rejections of claims 10 and 15, and dependent claims is withdrawn and claims 10, 12-20 and 29 are allowed.
Regarding dependent claim 7, examiner notes there was a clear typo of “claim 6” that addressed limitations of claim 7, specifically the pre-treatment aspect (see arguments 7/23/26 P10-11). Further see MPEP 2167.07, which notes that clear typos are allowed to be fixed as not considered new matter, i.e. no new facts will need to be presented. However, regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method for treating a produced water stream in the method of claim 7, and any intervening claims, where the second heat exchanger is disposed within a pre-treatment tank, and the where the produced water stream is introduced to the pre-treatment tank prior to being introduced to the distillation tank, and further comprising the step of chemically treating the produced water stream within the pre-treatment tank. Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) in combination with Zeitoun et al (US 9,309,129) and Steinbruchel (US 3,901,768), as previously applied are the closest relevant prior art, when integrating the pretreatment of Steinbruchel (US 3,901,768) into the system of modified Popov, the skilled artisan would not be motivated to perform this in a pre-treatment tank where the second heat exchanger is disposed within the pre-treatment tank, therefore claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Therefore this action will be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) with evidence from Aguinaldo et al (US 11,097,203).
Regarding claims 1, Popov teaches a water distilling system for raw water distillation (title, abstract, [0010]), Popov teaches the method comprises (i) introducing a liquid motive fluid 7 by pump 6 into an eductor 5;(ii) drawing vapor 3B from a distillation tank 3 into the eductor 5, where said drawing reduces the pressure within the distillation tank 3; (iii) mixing the motive fluid 7 and the vapor 3B (at inlets 5A/B) within the eductor 5 to produce a liquid stream from outlet 5C, where the vapor condenses within said eductor and thereby releases heat and at least a portion of the heat is transferred to the liquid stream; (iv) transferring in heat exchanger 4 at least a portion of the heat associated with the liquid stream to a salt solution 1; and (v) distilling the salt solution within the distillation tank 3; where the concentrated waste salt solution 12 is transferred to further handling and disposal 13 (see Fig 1, [0018-0019]).
However Popov does not explicitly the method is for produced water, produced water was a well known source of raw water for distillation treatment and it would have been obvious to treat well known raw water sources as suggested by Popov included produced water with the expected result of purifying the water. As evidence, Aguinaldo is directed to a low energy ejector desalination system (title, abstract), Aguinaldo recites “The present disclosure generally relates to treatment and desalination of seawater, produced water, and other high salinity water” (C1:L13-15), therefore seawater and produced water were well-understood as types of higher salinity water that may be treated in ejector-based desalination system equally with the expected result of desalination
Claim(s) 2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) with evidence from Aguinaldo et al (US 11,097,203), as applied above and further in combination with Zeitoun et al (US 9,309,129).
Regarding claims 2 and 5-6, Popov teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Popov only teaches a single distillation tank therefore does not teach the further distillation tanks as claimed or the heat exchanger within the distillation tank.
Zeitoun teaches a multi effect desalination system for purification of saline water (title, abstract), Zeitoun teaches the method comprises multiple effects 120,100a-e, a first vapor V3 is condensed in heating box 120 that heats a heat rod B1, this heat rod transfers the heat to a salt solution sprayed in sprayer 110a the heated water separates into brine water BR that collects in bottom of vessel 110a, and vapor that passes through demister 107a, and heats a heating rod B2 of a next effect 110b, where the cycle repeats for the further effect, the Freshwater F is passed through each stage and collected in separate basin from Brine water BR that is also passed through each stage, pumps 190a-d pump the fresh, feed and brinewaters through the system, where the vapors from the last stage 100e are suctioned into thermocompressor 140 where it is mixed with motive liquid 151 to provide vapor 180 to heating box 120, the incoming feed liquid is heated in final stage condenser 130 (Fig 1-2, C2:L20-C5:L28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Popov, which utilizes an eductor/thermocompressor, with the method of Zeitoun to transform to a multi-effect system, which also uses eductor, motivated to increase efficiency and throughput of the system as the skilled artisan appreciates the larger surface areas for heat exchange and improved efficiency and throughput of the design of Zeitoun, adding heat exchangers as suggested by Zeitoun would be expected.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) with evidence from Aguinaldo et al (US 11,097,203) in combination with Zeitoun et al (US 9,309,129) as applied above and further in combination with Holtzapple et al (US 2012/0199534).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Popov teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Popov only teaches a single eductor and therefore not first and second eductors in the configuration claimed.
Holtzapple teaches water desalination methods (title, abstract), Holtzapple teaches multiple effect desalination system comprises multiple distillation tanks 20a-d, each equipped with jet ejectors 92, which allows system throughput at lower temperatures and pressures, provided with motive fluid from 94 that provides negative pressure to tanks 20a-d and removes vapors 96 from tanks and condenses removed vapors to condensed liquid side of tanks 20a-d to remove distilled water 14 through heat exchanger 26 (Fig 6, [0060-0064,0075-0076]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Popov in view of Holtzapple to include multiple jet ejectors/eductors in the multi stager configuration to allow the system to operate at lower temperatures and pressure and therefore save operating costs as taught by Holtzapple modifying in this way was routine as shown by Holtzapple.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) with evidence from Aguinaldo et al (US 11,097,203), as applied above and further in combination with Pruet (US 2009/0261040).
Regarding claims 9, Popov teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Popov does not teach the concentrated salt solution is transferred to an oilfield operation.
Pruet teaches a method and system for treating produced water (title, abstract), the system produces “concentrated produced water” (abstract Fig 1), Pruet teaches this produced water may either be disposed of by injection into suitable subterranean location ([0030]).
Therefore the skilled artisan, understood before the effective filing date of the invention that concentrated produced water from a method for treating produced water may be sent back to the oilfield operation, i.e. the subterranean well, if permissible by regulations, as suggested by Pruet, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of the blanket teaching of Popov that the concentrated waste salt solution 12 is transferred to further handling and disposal 13 [0019], the skilled artisan would dispose as necessary and permissible without unexpected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights