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Claims 84, 88, 108-109, 121 and 129 are currently withdrawn from consideration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 are currently canceled
Claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/06/2025 and 03/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 27-28, 30-31, 42-45, 50 and 60 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract needs to be on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “the gas inlet” and instead should state “the one or more gas inlets” for further clarity. ALSO, line 2 states “is the same as” and instead should state “is a same as” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “produce wastewater droplets” and instead should state “produce the wastewater droplets” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “the trommel separator system” and instead should state “the trommel separation system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the wastewater to the cold gas,” and instead should state “the wastewater droplets to the cold gas,” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The wastewater processing system of” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the liquid inlet is configured to produce” on lines 1-2 of claim 12, and “the perforated sidewalls are configured as a heated gas inlet.” on lines 1-2 of claim 43.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 44-45 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.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "an air compressor.” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an air compressor,’ as recited on line 1 of claim 44, or a different air compressor? Claim 45 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 44.
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 system of claim 1, wherein the gas inlet is provided at a position below the gas outlet such that a flow direction of the cold gas is the 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 system of claim 1, wherein the liquid inlet is configured to produce 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 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 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 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 system of claim 27, wherein the trommel separator 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 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 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 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 system of claim 43, further comprising an air compressor, wherein heated gas is sourced to the heated gas inlet from an 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 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 system of claim 1, further comprising one or more reservoirs to collect byproducts created by the exposure of the wastewater 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 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.
Conclusion
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