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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 are currently pending
Claims 84, 88, 108-109, 121 and 129 were previously withdrawn from consideration
Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19-26, 29, 32-41, 46-49, 51-59, 61-83, 85-87, 89-107, 110-120, 122-128 and 130-147 were previously canceled
Claims 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 are currently amended
Claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 are currently rejected
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 1, 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enis et al. (U.S. 2010/0037653 A1) (hereinafter “Enis”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Enis teaches a wastewater processing system (see FIGS. 14-18 and 26-30) (see paragraphs 1, 23, 31, 93, 122, 150-153, 158, 171-177 and 184-186) comprising:
a chamber (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) comprising:
a liquid inlet comprising one or more nozzles to provide wastewater into the chamber (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and passed through one or more nozzles to form a spray, which forms a seawater droplet that is introduced into the chamber), wherein the wastewater exits each of the one or more nozzles as a liquid column and separates into wastewater droplets (see paragraphs 28, 31, 33-35 and 49 further describing a liquid column and droplets) (see paragraphs 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and passed through one or more nozzles to form a spray, which forms a seawater droplet that is introduced into the chamber);
one or more cold gas inlets for directing cold gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber), wherein the cold gas is provided at a temperature at or below a eutectic temperature of the wastewater (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber at or below a eutectic temperature of the wastewater); and
a gas outlet to exhaust the cold gas from the chamber (see FIGS. 14-18 and 26-30) (see paragraphs 29-30, 48-49, 150-153, 171-174 and 176-178 further describing exhausting the cold gas from the chamber);
wherein exposure of the wastewater droplets to the cold gas causes separation of water from contaminants in the wastewater droplets (see FIGS. 14-18 and 26-30) (see paragraphs 1, 23, 31, 93, 122, 150-153, 158, 171-177 and 184-186).
Although Enis teaches one or more spray nozzles, one may broadly interpret that Enis does not explicitly teach one or more injectors to provide wastewater into the chamber, as recited in independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify/substitute the one or more nozzles of Enis with one or more injectors to achieve the same desirable result of directing wastewater into the chamber (see paragraphs 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and introduced into the chamber).
Regarding Claim 5:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more gas inlets is provided at a position below the gas outlet such that a flow direction of the cold gas is a same as a flow direction of the wastewater (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber).
Regarding Claim 12:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, wherein the liquid inlet is configured to produce the wastewater droplets having a diameter of approximately 1.5 millimeters or greater (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 150-154, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and passed through one or more nozzles to form a spray, which forms a seawater droplet that is introduced into the chamber).
Regarding Claim 18:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, wherein the chamber further comprises a thawing channel (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 27:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 18, further comprising a trommel separation system (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 28:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 27, wherein the trommel separation system is provided in the thawing channel (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 30:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 27, wherein the trommel separation system comprises a rotating trommel drum (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 31:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 30, wherein the rotating trommel drum comprises perforations (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48-50, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 42:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises perforated sidewalls (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48-50, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 43:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 42, wherein the perforated sidewalls are configured as a heated gas inlet (see FIGS. 14-18, chamber with insulated walls) (see paragraphs 31, 33-35, 48-50, 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178) (see FIGS. 26-30).
Regarding Claim 44:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 43, further comprising an air compressor, wherein heated gas is sourced to the heated gas inlet from the air compressor (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber).
Regarding Claim 45:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 44, further comprising a compander, wherein the air compressor supplies compressed air to an inlet of the compander (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber).
Regarding Claim 50:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, further comprising one or more reservoirs to collect byproducts created by the exposure of the wastewater droplets to the cold gas, wherein at least one of the one or more reservoirs is a contaminated byproduct reservoir for collecting at least some of the contaminants (see FIGS. 14-18 and 26-30) (see paragraphs 29-30, 48-49, 150-153, 171-174 and 176-178 further describing exhausting the cold gas from the chamber).
Regarding Claim 60:
Enis teaches the wastewater processing system of claim 1, wherein the cold gas is sourced from a compressed gas system (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 23-27,30-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 91-93, 96, 106-107, 110-113, 133-134 and 150-153 further describing directing cold/freezing gas to the wastewater droplets inside the chamber).
Other References Considered
Enis et al. (U.S. 2014/0352984 A1) (hereinafter “Enis2”) teaches a system and method for using pressure cycling and cold liquid carbon dioxide.
Enis et al. (U.S. 10,167,205 B1) (hereinafter “Enis3”) teaches a separation system and method of impurities.
Enis et al. (WO 2024/015865 A2) (hereinafter “Enis4”) teaches a wastewater processing system and method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous specification/abstract objection has been considered and is now withdrawn.
The previous claim objections have been considered and are now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendments.
The previous 112(f) claim interpretation/analysis has been considered and is now withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) claim rejections have been considered and are now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendments.
Applicant argues throughout pages 9-13 of the Remarks section filed on 07/08/2026 “Applicant respectfully disagrees and contends that Enis does not teach ‘wherein the wastewater exits each of the one or more injectors as a liquid column and separates into wastewater droplets’…the claimed injectors are distinct from spray nozzles, in that they allow for the wastewater to exit as a liquid column that then separates into wastewater droplets of sufficient size to allow for a more efficient purification. A person of skill would not have found this improvement obvious…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Enis teaches a wastewater processing system (see FIGS. 14-18 and 26-30) (see paragraphs 1, 23, 31, 93, 122, 150-153, 158, 171-177 and 184-186) further including one or more nozzles (see FIGS. 14-18) (see paragraphs 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and passed through one or more nozzles to form a spray, which forms a seawater droplet that is introduced into the chamber), wherein the wastewater exits each of the one or more nozzles as a liquid column and separates into wastewater droplets (see paragraphs 28, 31, 33-35 and 49 further describing a liquid column and droplets) (see paragraphs 150-153, 158-160 and 171-178 further describing seawater is pressurized and passed through one or more nozzles to form a spray, which forms a seawater droplet that is introduced into the chamber).
Furthermore, the one or more nozzles of Enis is capable of and achieving the same desired result as the claimed ‘one or more injectors’ to further provide wastewater into the chamber (see paragraphs 28, 31, 33-35 and 49 further describing a liquid column and droplets).
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 AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights