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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action supersedes the earlier mailed Non-Final Rejection.
The indicated allowability of claims 2-9 and 12-19 is withdrawn in view of a newly discovered reference to Joseph (US 2025/0319420). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “settling tank baffle wall” (claims 4 and 14) and the “second fluid opening extending through the divider wall” (claims 6 and 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the contents of paragraph [0005], the first paragraph of the “BRIEF SUMMARY”, which recites the following:
This summary is provided to describe select concepts in a simplified form that are further described in the Detailed Description. This summary is not intended to identify key or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
37 C.F.R. 1.73 requires the following of a brief summary of invention:
A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.
(emphasis added).
MPEP 608.01(d), in discussing 37 C.F.R. 1.73, clarifies that “the purpose of the brief summary of invention is to apprise the public, and more especially those interested in the particular art to which the invention relates, of the nature of the invention,” and that “The brief summary, if properly written to set out the exact nature, operation, and purpose of the invention, will be of material assistance in aiding ready understanding of the patent in future searches.” MPEP 608.01(d) further states that “The brief summary of invention should be consistent with the subject matter of the claims.”
A brief summary which does not identify key features of the claimed subject matter and/or cannot be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter does not comply with the requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.73. Thus, paragraph [0005] is objectionable because it at least suggests that brief summary does not describe key features of the invention as claimed and/or that it cannot be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2 and 12 recite a first nozzle wall having at least one first baffle nozzle formed therein and a second nozzle wall having at least one second baffle nozzle formed therein.
Examiner interprets the claimed first and second baffle nozzles as being passages which are tapered and/or which project from their respective nozzle walls.
Examiner notes that this interpretation is given on account of the usage of the word “nozzle” and is consistent with the Merriam-Webster Definition of “nozzle, as well as Applicant’s depiction of the baffle nozzles (see elements 214 and 216 in Figures 3 and 4).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because it is a substantial duplicate of claim 8.
Claim 19 is objected to because it is a substantial duplicate of claim 9.
Claim 20 is objected to because it is a substantial duplicate of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joseph (US 2025/0319420).
With regard to claim 1: Joseph teaches a distillation (evaporation) system (abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0005], Figures 1-7), the system comprising:
A tank 100 having a first end wall, a second end wall, a front wall, a back wall, a top wall, and a bottom wall that together define an inner volume, a divider wall (end wall) 145 disposed within the tank and dividing the inner volume into a main chamber and a settling chamber (exit chamber) 286, the main chamber (which is further divided into chambers 220, 240, 250, 270, and 280) having at least a fluid inlet port (water inlet) 510 and an exhaust gas inlet port 210, the settling chamber having at least an exhaust gas outlet port (tank outlet/exit) 290, the divider wall 145 having a divider wall opening (window) 146 formed therein that provides fluid communication between the main chamber and the settling chamber (Figures 1, 2, and 4-7, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], [0024]-[0030], and [0034]).
A diffuser (inlet duct) 215 disposed within the main chamber and coupled to the exhaust gas inlet port 210 (Figures 1, 2, and 3-7, paragraph [0026]).
And a gas turbine engine 300 in fluid communication with the exhaust gas inlet port 210 (Figures 1, 2, and 4-7, paragraphs [0019] and [0021]-[0026]).
With regard to claim 2: The system of Joseph further comprises:
A first nozzle wall disposed within the main chamber and coupled to the diffuser 215, the first nozzle wall spaced apart from the front wall of the tank to define, within the main chamber, an inlet volume (evaporation chamber) 220 between the first nozzle wall and the front wall, the first nozzle wall having at least one first baffle nozzle (outlet/nozzle) 230 formed therein (Figures 3-7, paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
A first baffle wall (impingement wall) 245 having a plurality of first baffle openings (windows) 246 extending therethrough, the first baffle wall 245 disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the first nozzle wall to define, within the main chamber, a first mixing volume (chamber) 240 between the first nozzle wall and the first baffle wall 245 (Figures 3-7, paragraph [0027]).
A second nozzle wall (chamber wall) 255 disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the first baffle wall to define, within the main chamber, an intermediate volume (chamber) 250, the second nozzle wall having at least one second baffle nozzle (outlet/nozzle) 260 formed therein (Figures 3-7, paragraph [0028]).
And a second baffle wall (impingement wall) 275 having a plurality of second baffle openings (windows) 276 extending therethrough, the second baffle wall disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the second nozzle wall 255 to define, the within the main chamber, a second mixing volume (chamber) 270 between the second nozzle wall 255 and the second baffle wall 275, the second baffle wall 275 further spaced apart from the back wall of the tank to define, within the main chamber, an outlet volume (chamber) 280 (Figures 3-7, paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
With regard to claim 12: Joseph teaches a distillation (evaporation) system (abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0005], Figures 1-7), the system comprising:
A tank 100 having a first end wall, a second end wall, a front wall, a back wall, a top wall, and a bottom wall that together define an inner volume, a divider wall (end wall) 145 disposed within the tank and dividing the inner volume into a main chamber and a settling chamber (exit chamber) 286, the main chamber (which is further divided into chambers 220, 240, 250, 270, and 280) having at least a fluid inlet port (water inlet) 510 and an exhaust gas inlet port 210, the settling chamber having at least an exhaust gas outlet port (tank outlet/exit) 290, the divider wall 145 having a divider wall opening (window) 146 formed therein that provides fluid communication between the main chamber and the settling chamber (Figures 1, 2, and 4-7, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], [0024]-[0030], and [0034]).
A diffuser (inlet duct) 215 disposed within the main chamber and coupled to the exhaust gas inlet port 210 (Figures 1, 2, and 3-7, paragraph [0026]).
A first nozzle wall disposed within the main chamber and coupled to the diffuser 215, the first nozzle wall spaced apart from the front wall of the tank to define, within the main chamber, an inlet volume (evaporation chamber) 220 between the first nozzle wall and the front wall, the first nozzle wall having at least one first baffle nozzle (outlet/nozzle) 230 formed therein (Figures 3-7, paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
A first baffle wall (impingement wall) 245 having a plurality of first baffle openings (windows) 246 extending therethrough, the first baffle wall 245 disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the first nozzle wall to define, within the main chamber, a first mixing volume (chamber) 240 between the first nozzle wall and the first baffle wall 245 (Figures 3-7, paragraph [0027]).
A second nozzle wall (chamber wall) 255 disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the first baffle wall to define, within the main chamber, an intermediate volume (chamber) 250, the second nozzle wall having at least one second baffle nozzle (outlet/nozzle) 260 formed therein (Figures 3-7, paragraph [0028]).
And a second baffle wall (impingement wall) 275 having a plurality of second baffle openings (windows) 276 extending therethrough, the second baffle wall disposed within the main chamber and spaced apart from the second nozzle wall 255 to define, the within the main chamber, a second mixing volume (chamber) 270 between the second nozzle wall 255 and the second baffle wall 275, the second baffle wall 275 further spaced apart from the back wall of the tank to define, within the main chamber, an outlet volume (chamber) 280 (Figures 3-7, paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
And a gas turbine engine 300 in fluid communication with the exhaust gas inlet port 210, the gas turbine engine configured, during operation thereof, to discharge exhaust gas into the inlet volume via the diffuser (Figures 1, 2, and 4-7, paragraphs [0019] and [0021]-[0026]).
With regard to claims 3 and 13: The outlet volume 280 is in fluid communication with the settling chamber 286 via the divider wall opening 146 (Figures 3-7, paragraphs [0020] and [0029]).
With regard to claims 5 and 15: The system of Joseph further comprises:
A plurality of first fluid openings (gaps) 228, 248, 258, and 278 extending through each of the first nozzle wall, the first baffle wall, the second nozzle wall, and the second baffle wall, the first fluid openings located adjacent the bottom wall of the tank and providing fluid communication between the inlet volume, the first mixing volume, the intermediate volume, the second mixing volume, and the outlet volume (Figures 3-7, paragraph [0029]).
With regard to claims 6 and 16: Joseph’s Figures 4-7 at least suggest a second fluid opening extending through the divider wall 145 and located adjacent to the bottom wall of the tank, wherein said second fluid opening provides fluid communication between the settling chamber and the main chamber (see Annotated Figures 4 and 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 7 and 17: During operation, fluid within the main chamber is maintained at or above a predetermined fluid level, i.e. any of levels W1, W2, W3, W4, and/or W5 (Figure 6, paragraphs [0026] and [0030]).
The system of Jospeh is at least capable of operating according to a mode wherein the at least one first baffle nozzle 230 and the at least one second baffle nozzle 260 are each located below the predetermined fluid level; and the plurality of first baffle openings 246 and the plurality of second baffle openings 276 are each located above the predetermined fluid level (Figure 6, paragraph [0026]; see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claims 8 and 18: The system of Joseph further comprises:
A fluid source and a fluid pump 520 disposed between, and in fluid communication with, the fluid source and the main chamber, the fluid pump 520 configured to maintain the fluid within the main chamber at or above the predetermined fluid level (Figures 1-2 and 3-7, especially Figures 6 and 7, paragraphs [0030] and [0034]).
With regard to claims 9 and 19: The system of Joseph further comprises a fluid level sensor 540 disposed on or within the tank, the fluid level sensor configured to sense the fluid level within the main chamber and supply a fluid level signal to the fluid pump 520 (Figure 7, paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 10: The system of Joseph further comprises an engine control in operable communication with the gas turbine engine, and configured to control the operation of the gas turbine engine (Figure 1, paragraph [0022]).
With regard to claims 11 and 20: The system of Joseph further comprises an exhaust duct 390 coupled between the gas turbine engine and the exhaust gas inlet port, the exhaust duct configured to direct the exhaust gas discharged from the gas turbine engine into the exhaust gas inlet port (Figure 1, paragraph [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 4, 6, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Rumell et al. (US 7,192,469), hereafter referred to as Rumell.
With regard to claims 4, 6, 14, and 16: Joseph teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as described in the 102 rejections set forth above.
Joseph does not explicitly teach a settling tank baffle wall disposed within the settling chamber and having a third baffle opening extending therethrough.
However, in Joseph, the settling tank (exit chamber) 286 is a chamber through which evaporated water and exhaust gas exit the tank into the exhaust gas outlet port 290 (Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5, paragraphs [0020], [0025], and [0029]). Bearing this in mind, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to provide the exit chamber with a mist eliminator (aka droplet separator, demister, etc.) which serves to separate any entrained liquid from the evaporated water and exhaust gas, thereby preventing any such entrained liquid from contaminating purified water produced by the system.
Mist eliminators comprised of baffles having openings therein are well known in the art. For example, Rumell, drawn to an exhaust gas treatment system (abstract), teaches a system comprising such mist eliminators (droplet retainers) 34 (Figure 2, Column 2 Lines 15-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Joseph in view of Rumell by adding a settling tank baffle wall disposed within the settling chamber and having a third baffle opening extending therethrough, said settling tank baffle wall serving as a mist eliminator, in order to provide the system of Joseph with a means of separating any entrained liquid from the evaporated water and exhaust gas, thereby preventing any such entrained liquid from contaminating purified water produced by the system.
Joseph’s Figures 4-7 at least suggest a second fluid opening extending through the divider wall 145 and located adjacent to the bottom wall of the tank, wherein said second fluid opening provides fluid communication between the settling chamber and the main chamber (see Annotated Figures 4 and 5 below).
Nevertheless, should it be argued that Joseph does not include such a second fluid opening, a person having ordinary skill in the art, having added the third baffle wall to serve as a mist eliminator, would find it desirable that the divider wall be provided with such a second fluid opening to allow entrained liquid collected by the third baffle wall to renter the main chamber, rather than accumulating within the settling chamber.
Systems having such second openings are known in the art. For example, Rumell at least suggests that a droplet reservoir, which collates entrained liquid separated by the mist eliminators (droplet retainers) 34 be placed in fluid communication with a main reservoir 17 (Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 25-30).
If Joesph does not include a second fluid opening extending through the divider wall 145 and located adjacent to the bottom wall of the tank, wherein said second fluid opening provides fluid communication between the settling chamber and the main chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Joseph in view of Rumell by adding such a second fluid opening, in order to provide a means to allow entrained liquid collected by the third baffle wall to renter the main chamber, rather than accumulating within the settling chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duesel et al. (US 2008/0174033), hereafter referred to as Duesel in view of Wood et al. (US 2,921,004), hereafter referred to as Wood.
With regard to claim 1: Duesel teaches a distillation system (abstract, Figures 1 and 5, paragraphs [0031], [0032], and [0051]), the system comprising:
A tank (vessel) 30/330 having walls that define an inner volume, a divider wall (weir) 40/340 disposed within the tank and dividing the inner volume into a main chamber (volume; i.e. chamber to the right of the divider in Figures 1 and 5) 70/370 and a settling chamber (volume; i.e. chamber to the right of the divider in Figures 1 and 5) 71, the main chamber 70/370 having at least a fluid inlet port 34/334 and an exhaust gas inlet port (gas inlet tube) 22/322, the settling chamber having at least an exhaust gas outlet port (gas exit port) 360, the divider wall 40/340 having divider wall openings formed therein (i.e. at the bottom and top of the divider wall) that provide fluid communication between the main chamber and the settling chamber (Figures 1 and 5, paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0035]-[0037], and [0051]).
A diffuser (gas exit ports/sparge ports) 24 disposed in the main chamber and coupled to the exhaust gas inlet port 22/322 (Figures 1 and 5, paragraphs [0032], and [0035]-[0037]).
A source of exhaust gas (“for example, a flare stack, a reciprocating engine, a turbine, or other source of waste heat”) in fluid communication with the exhaust gas inlet port 22/322, said source of exhaust gas configured to discharge exhaust gas into the main chamber 70/370 via the diffuser 24 (Figure 5, paragraph [0051]).
With respect to the embodiments relied upon in this rejection (those of Figures 1 and 5), Duesel does not teach any particular shape associated with the tank 30/330. Regardless of the shape of said tank 30/330, it is inarguable that the tank has a top wall and a bottom wall which are partially responsible for defining said inner volume. Furthermore, regardless of the shape of said tank 30/330, said tank is fairly characterized as having a first end wall, a second end wall, a back wall, and a front wall. For example, if the tank is cylindrical in shape, the circumferential portion of said tank walls can be fairly characterized as constituting two end walls, a front wall, and a back wall, each of said walls being constituted by a quarter of the circumferential portion.
In the alternative, Duesel teaches that, “While several different types air strippers having different weir configurations are illustrated herein, it will be understood that the shapes and configurations of the components, including the weirs, baffles, liquid entry ports, liquid discharge ports, gas entry ports and gas discharge ports used in these devices could be varied or altered as desired,” (paragraph [0055]). This teaching, to one of ordinary skill in the art would at least suggest that the shape of the tank is unimportant. It is well established that mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
If, for the sake of argument, the tank 30/330 cannot be considered as having a first end wall, a second end wall, a back wall, and a front wall, e.g. as the result of it having some particular shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the tank, such that said tank were shaped (e.g. as a cube or a rectangular prism) so as to inarguably comprise first and second end walls, a back wall, and a front wall, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation system of different shape.
Duesel does not explicitly teach that the source of exhaust gas is a gas turbine.
However, as discussed above, Duesel teaches that the source of exhaust gas can be “a flare stack, a reciprocating engine, a turbine, or other source of waste heat” (paragraph [0051]). To one of ordinary skill in the art, this teaching would suggest the use of a gas turbine as the source of exhaust gas, as gas turbines generate waste heat, and are turbines.
Nevertheless, Wood, drawn to an apparatus for purifying hot water by evaporation using a hot gas derived from a source of waste heat (Column 1, especially lines 55-63), expressly suggests that exhaust gases from gas turbines can yield good results when applied as a heating gas for evaporating water (Column 4 Lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duesel by using a gas turbine as the source of exhaust gas, in order to obtain a predictably functional evaporation system which uses a predictably suitable source of hot exhaust gas/waste heat.
With regard to claim 10: Modified Duesel does not explicitly teach an engine control in operable communication with the gas turbine and configured to control operation of the gas turbine. However, every engine necessarily comprises at least a rudimentary engine control of some sort, e.g. at least means for turning the gas turbine on and off (starting and stopping operation thereof).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Duesel by adding an engine configured to control operation of the gas turbine, i.e. at least for turning the gas turbine on and off (starting and stopping operation thereof), in order to obtain a system wherein the gas turbine engine can advantageously be stared when desired and stopped when desired or necessary.
With regard to Claims 11 and 20: Modified Duesel comprises an exhaust duct coupled between the gas turbine engine and the exhaust gas inlet port, the exhaust gas duct configured to direct the exhaust gas discharged from the gas turbine engine into the exhaust gas inlet port (Duesel: Figures 1 and 5).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/083,820.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘820 application anticipate or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 10, 11, and 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/083,820 in view of Joseph (US 2025/0319420).
The claims are drawn to a similar distillation system.
The principal difference between the two claim sets is that the claims of the ‘820 Application do not include limitations to the baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
Joseph teaches an evaporation system having such baffle walls and nozzle walls (Figures 1-7, paragraphs [0019]-[0034]).
When considered in combination, the claims of the ‘820 Application and the disclosure of Jospeh suggest the distillation system of the present claims, i.e. a system comprising baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/083,936.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘936 application anticipate or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 10, 11, and 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/083,936 in view of Joseph (US 2025/0319420).
The claims are drawn to a similar distillation system.
The principal difference between the two claim sets is that the claims of the ‘936 Application do not include limitations to the baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
Joseph teaches an evaporation system having such baffle walls and nozzle walls (Figures 1-7, paragraphs [0019]-[0034]).
When considered in combination, the claims of the ‘936 Application and the disclosure of Jospeh suggest the distillation system of the present claims, i.e. a system comprising baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 14 of copending Application No. 19/282,186.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘186 application anticipate or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 10, 11, and 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 14 of copending Application No. 19/282,186 in view of Joseph (US 2025/0319420).
The claims are drawn to a similar distillation system.
The principal difference between the two claim sets is that the claims of the ‘186 Application do not include limitations to the baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
Joseph teaches an evaporation system having such baffle walls and nozzle walls (Figures 1-7, paragraphs [0019]-[0034]).
When considered in combination, the claims of the ‘186 Application and the disclosure of Jospeh suggest the distillation system of the present claims, i.e. a system comprising baffle walls and nozzle walls as recited in claims 2 and 12 of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,382,075 is the granted patent corresponding to the Duesel PG pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
US 9,156,711 belongs to the same patent family as the Duesel PG pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
US 2,373,519 teaches a “wash box” which closely resembles the device illustrated Applicant’s Figure 1 (Column 1, Figure 1). Said “wash box” is at least capable of functioning as an evaporator/distillation system. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure said wash box to receive hot exhaust from a gas turbine.
US 3,757,708 teaches a pollution control device which closely resembles the device illustrated Applicant’s Figure 1 (Abstract, Column 1, Figures 1 and 3).
US 5,606,965; US 5,636,623; US 6,293,277 B1, US 6,338,337; and US 8,852,394 all teach devices submerged combustion evaporators which bear similarities to the invention of claim 1. Examiner finds that Applicant’s invention (including the embodiment presently expressed in claim 1) is NOT fairly characterized as a submerged combustion evaporator/distiller. Nevertheless, the prior art references in question are relevant on account of their teachings to baffle assemblies similar to that recited in present claim 1.
US 7,416,172; US 8,425,665; US 7,832,714; US 8,043,479; US 8,833,738; US 8,136,797; US 2012/0318009 all disclose similar subject matter to the Duesel PG pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above, and all have at least one inventor in common therewith.
US 3,998,613; US 4,005,999; US 4,039,307; US 4,406,843; US 4,612,176; and US 6,546,883 teach devices similar to the device claimed in claims 2 and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights