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
Rejected Claims: 1-9
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-4 and 7-9 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the abstract and specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-4 and 7-9, the previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn, excluding one objection to claim 1 which has been listed below.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-2 and 8, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 FEBRUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art Helm, used to teach the vacuum on the system, does not explicitly teach that the vacuum is created prior to operating the system and that the vacuum is only created on a portion of the system instead of the entire system and so claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 13 to Page 16, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the limitation “creating a partial vacuum in the water desalination system” prior to other steps have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Kang, cited below, teaches a start-up procedure that includes adjusting the pressure of the system prior to starting, and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teaches “wherein the water desalination system comprises at least the first vacuum tank and a second vacuum tank to ensure that the partial vacuum is maintained in the water desalination system” or “(n) flowing resulting freshwater product water having no amount of ammonium bicarbonate ions out of the draw side of the RO membrane housing towards the second vacuum tank to be pumped in and out of the second vacuum tank” because Yun teaches tanks that require some pressure and would require a vacuum pump, which has now also been excluded from use and so claim 1 is now allowable (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 16, Paragraph 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the limitations “wherein the water desalination system comprises at least the first vacuum tank and a second vacuum tank to ensure that the partial vacuum is maintained in the water desalination system” or “(n) flowing resulting freshwater product water having no amount of ammonium bicarbonate ions out of the draw side of the RO membrane housing towards the second vacuum tank to be pumped in and out of the second vacuum tank” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Yun is no longer used as prior art in the new rejection. Helm and Kang teach the limitations which is described below in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that McGinnis teaches heating a diluted solution then directing the solution to a hydrophobic membrane to further separate the product and thus could not be used in combination with Oasys (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 16, Paragraph 3 to Page 18, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Oasys teaches the use of membrane distillation and McGinnis teaches that the system may include a membrane distillation apparatus to strip draw solutes (Col. 3, Lines 45-59) and that membranes of the solute recovery systems can be made by hydrophobic membrane materials and sized such that water does not pass through, but gases may pass through (Col. 25, Lines 14-45) and even explicitly teaches that system can use ammonium bicarbonate in the forward osmosis process (Col. 10, Lines 37-60). Therefore, the simple use of the hydrophobic membranes taught by McGinnis could easily be applied in the same application as described by Oasys.
Applicant argues that Oasys teaches a list of optional post-treatment systems and so the combination of forward osmosis, membrane distillation, and reverse osmosis would require hindsight to reconstruct (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 18, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Oasys teaches a small subset of options and explicitly teaches the forward osmosis and membrane distillation steps in order. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose one from a small subset of eight given options to come to the instant claimed invention without undue experimentation (Paragraph 0022) especially as there is an example that explicitly teaches choosing reverse osmosis as a post-treatment system (Paragraph 0080). Therefore it would not require hindsight for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose forward osmosis, membrane distillation and reverse osmosis processes being performed in that order. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that claims 2-9 are allowable because claim 1 is allowable for the above reasons (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 19).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-9 are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the (FO) membrane housing” in lines 7-8 of the claim should read “the FO membrane housing”.
In Claim 8, “the additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate” twice in line 2 and line 3 of the claim should read “the additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oasys Water Inc. (US Patent Application No. 20160002073 A1) hereinafter Oasys, in view of McGinnis (US Patent No. 9044711 B2) hereinafter McGinnis, in view of Helm et al (US Patent Application No. 20150136676 A1) hereinafter Helm, in view of Kang et al (US Patent Application No. 20210046424 A1) hereinafter Kang.
Regarding Claim 1, Oasys teaches a separation process using osmotically driven membrane systems using forward osmosis (i.e., a water desalination method that uses forward osmosis, comprising; Abstract, Paragraph 0002) with an exemplary system involving pretreating brackish water (i.e., water desalination; Fig. 2, #20)
with pre-treatment units including a heat exchanger to preheat the first solution (i.e., raising the temperature of incoming salt water prior to directing the incoming salt water to a forward osmosis (FO) membrane housing thereby creating heated incoming salt water; Fig. 2, #14)
that directs the treated stream (Fig. 2, #22) to the forward osmosis system (i.e., (c) after step (b) directing the heated incoming salt water to an inlet of a feed side of the FO membrane housing; Fig. 2, #12)
and another stream (Fig. 2, #24) provides the draw solution to the forward osmosis system, explicitly describing ammonium bicarbonate as a preferable solute in the draw solution with a semi-permeable membrane (i.e., (d) directing a first amount of concentrated ammonium bicarbonate solution into a draw side of the FO membrane housing; wherein the feed side and the draw side of the FO membrane housing are separated by a FO permeable membrane; wherein the concentrated ammonium bicarbonate solution functions as a draw solution in the FO membrane housing; (d) as a result of osmotic pressure, allowing a minimum period of time for the concentrated ammonium bicarbonate solution to pull a percentage of desalinated product water from the feed side through the FO permeable membrane to the draw side of the FO membrane housing; Paragraph 0035),
where the concentrated stream (Fig. 2, #26 and 38) is disposed of, recycled, or reclaimed (i.e., (e) flowing brine or other extracted contaminant solutes pulled through the FO membrane housing in the feed side of the FO membrane housing to a collection point for the brine or the other extracted contaminant solutes)
and the diluted draw stream (i.e., (f) flowing a resulting solution from the draw side of the FO membrane housing, wherein the resulting solution is a combination of the percentage of desalinated product water and ammonium bicarbonate solution and wherein the resulting solution is a diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution; Fig. 2, #28a)
is sent to post-treatment units (Fig. 1, #16) which includes a heat exchange system for preheating the dilute draw solution (i.e., (h) directing the resulting solution to a heat source to raise the temperature of the resulting solution)
where the dilute draw solution is sent via a stream (Fig. 2, #28b) to the separation system (Fig. 2, #30), explicitly describing membrane distillation (i.e., (i) after step (h), flowing the resulting solution comprising the diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution from the heat source into a feed side of a hydrophobic membrane housing, wherein the hydrophobic membrane housing comprises a membrane that permits gases to flow through the hydrophobic membrane from the feed side of the hydrophobic membrane housing to a draw side of the hydrophobic membrane housing, wherein the gases are ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water vapor; (j) allowing the resulting solution to be filtered through a membrane of the hydrophobic membrane housing, wherein any ammonium bicarbonate ions in the resulting solution are converted or dissociate into the gases in the feed side of the hydrophobic membrane housing, wherein the gases pass through the membrane from the feed side of the hydrophobic membrane housing to the draw side of the hydrophobic membrane housing; Paragraph 0018) in which the substantially pure solvent stream (i.e., leaving behind freshwater product water to flow out of the feed side of the hydrophobic membrane housing with traceable amounts of ammonium bicarbonate ions present in the freshwater product water; Fig. 2, #32a)
is sent to the post-treatment which includes reverse osmosis (i.e., (k) flowing the freshwater product water from the feed side of the hydrophobic membrane housing into a feed side of a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane housing; (m) allowing an amount of water in the freshwater product water to be drawn through a membrane of the RO membrane housing, while the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions remain on the feed side of the RO membrane housing)
and a heat exchange system (i.e., (o) flowing the resulting freshwater product water into a first heat exchanger to raise the temperature of the resulting freshwater product water)
where further treatment depends upon the end use of the solvent (i.e., (p) flowing the resulting freshwater product water from the first heat exchanger for further treatment and end use; Paragraphs 0059-0062).
Oasys does not teach wherein the hydrophobic membrane housing comprises a hydrophobic membrane.
However, McGinnis teaches a forward osmosis separation process involving ammonia and carbon dioxide (Col. 1, Line 48 to Col. 2, Line 2) in which the dilute draw solution is sent to a membrane distillation apparatus to desorb and resorb solute gases (Col. 3, lines 4-20) which includes adding heat to the separation operation and applying a pressure difference to the gases (Col. 22, Lines 26-55) and in which the solvent enriched solution may have a vacuum maintained over it to improve the efficiency of the vaporization of gases out of the solution (Col. 18, Lines 56 to Col. 19, Line 24) where membranes for the solute recovery systems can include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and polypropylene (PP) to serve the purpose of preventing liquid water from passing through and allowing gases to pass through (Col. 25, Lines 14-45) with additional selective materials including solids that are made impermeable to water vapor but contain carriers to facilitate the transport of NH3 and CO2 (Col. 27, Lines 11-27).
McGinnis is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a forward osmosis separation process involving ammonia and carbon dioxide (Col. 1, Line 48 to Col. 2, Line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Oasys with the hydrophobic membrane as taught by McGinnis because the hydrophobic membrane would be selective for NH3 and CO2 and would prevent water vapor from passing through the membrane to increase system efficiency.
Oasys in view of McGinnis does not teach (l) along with step (k), directing additional clean water into a draw side of the RO membrane housing, (g) pumping the resulting solution to a first vacuum tank, and (n) flowing the resulting freshwater product water having no amount of ammonium bicarbonate ions out of the draw side of the RO membrane housing towards the second vacuum tank to be pumped in and out of the second vacuum tank.
However, Helm teaches that the solutions can be introduced under vacuum for membrane modules operating under forward osmosis modes (i.e., (a) creating a partial vacuum in the water desalination system; (b) after creating the partial vacuum in the water desalination system; Paragraph 0070) and that during reverse osmosis modes a draw solution can be sent to the draw side of the membrane and circulated through a tank (i.e., (g) pumping the resulting solution to a first vacuum tank, (l) along with step (k), directing additional clean water into a draw side of the RO membrane housing and (n) flowing the resulting freshwater product water having no amount of ammonium bicarbonate ions out of the draw side of the RO membrane housing towards the second vacuum tank to be pumped in and out of the second vacuum tank) and the draw solution can be operated under a vacuum for the purpose of assisting in the diffusion through the membrane (Paragraphs 0074-0075).
Helm is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to osmotically driven membrane systems (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Oasys in view of McGinnis with the vacuum on the forward osmosis process and the draw solution recirculation during the reverse osmosis process as taught by Helm because the modifications would assist the diffusion through the membranes.
Oasys in view of McGinnis in view of Helm does not teach (a) creating a partial vacuum in the water desalination system, wherein a vacuum pump is not used, (b) after creating the partial vacuum in the water desalination system, wherein the water desalination system comprises at least the first vacuum tank and a second vacuum tank to ensure that the partial vacuum is maintained in the water desalination system.
However, Kang teaches a membrane apparatus with a method of operating the apparatus involving preparing the membrane chamber with an initial draw solution, an initial mixed solution, and an initial final filtration liquid and then controlling the degree of vacuum of the system to correspond with the solute concentration of the mixed solution (Paragraphs 0024-0025), which is a start-up procedure prior to operating the system continuously, with the vacuum being in the range of 1 to 660 Torr absolute pressure and the liquid collection chamber (Fig. 1, #300) is connected to the discharge region (Fig. 1, DR) wherein the vacuum pump (Fig. 1, #240) can be a barometric condenser as an alternative to reduce pressure (i.e., (a) creating a partial vacuum in the water desalination system, wherein a vacuum pump is not used, (b) after creating the partial vacuum in the water desalination system; Paragraph 0067). Kang further teaches that it is known to pump fluid out from the liquid collection chamber (Paragraph 0070) and where the housing can also include reverse osmosis membranes operating under vacuum (i.e., wherein the water desalination system comprises at least the first vacuum tank and a second vacuum tank to ensure that the partial vacuum is maintained in the water desalination system; Paragraph 0100). Kang teaches that the liquid collection chamber and vacuum can be applied to both forward osmosis and reverse osmosis processes, and so it would be obvious to apply the vacuum to both processes as taught by Oasys. Kang teaches that the purpose of the invention is to improve forward osmosis performance (Paragraph 0011).
Kang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a membrane separation apparatus (Paragraph 0002), especially forward osmosis and reverse osmosis (Paragraph 0003), and the draw solution can include ammonium bicarbonate (Paragraph 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Oasys in view of McGinnis in view of Helm with the vacuum system and pulling vacuum before starting the process as taught by Kang because the vacuum would improve the forward osmosis performance of the process.
Regarding Claim 2, Oasys further teaches the process involving pretreating the brackish water (Fig. 2, #20) with pre-treatment units including a heat exchanger to preheat the first solution (i.e., wherein raising the temperature of the incoming salt water prior to directing the incoming salt water to the FO membrane housing at step (b) further comprises: directing the incoming salt water into a first side of a second heat exchanger; and allowing the temperature of the incoming salt water to be raised; Fig. 2, #14) and that pumps are conventionally used in the interconnecting of the different apparatuses (i.e., after exiting a source side of a second heat exchanger pump; Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Regarding Claim 3, Oasys further teaches that significant improvements in thermal desalination can be made with the use of a heat pump (Paragraph 0049). McGinnis further teaches the use of a heat pump to assist an existing source of thermal energy to the membrane devices (i.e., further comprising, after step (b) and before step (c), directing the incoming saltwater to a source side of a heat pump; Abstract and Col. 6, Line 66 to Col. 7, Line 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Oasys further teaches that the recycling system (Fig. 2, #34) can be used to provide heat exchange with the feed stream (Fig. 2, #20) via an outlet stream (i.e., further comprising, directing the incoming saltwater from the heat pump to a third heat exchanger prior to directing the incoming saltwater to the FO membrane at step (c); Fig. 2, #40; Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 5, Oasys further teaches that the process can be provided sources of heated fluids (Fig. 8B, #544) from a concentrated solar plant (i.e., wherein the heat source comprises heat generated from a solar plant; Paragraph 0081).
Regarding Claim 6, Oasys further teaches that the process can be provided a source of geothermal fluids (i.e., wherein the heat source comprises heat emitted from a geothermal well; Fig. 8B, #444; Paragraph 0080).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oasys in view of McGinnis in view of Helm in view of Kang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Miura et al (Internation Patent Application No. WO 2023058592 A1) hereinafter Miura.
Regarding Claim 7, Oasys in view of McGinnis in view of Helm in view of Kang does not teach further comprising, after step (m), directing the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions remaining on the feed side of the RO membrane housing through a dividing valve and re-directing the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions to the second heat exchanger further comprising adding liquid to create additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution.
However, Miura teaches that the regenerated draw solution on the retentate side of the reverse osmosis (Fig. 2, #20) is sent to a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, #7) to heat the feed solution (i.e., and re-directing the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions to the second heat exchanger) and the flow of the regenerated draw solution is split to another heat exchanger path (i.e., further comprising, after step (m), directing the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions remaining on the feed side of the RO membrane housing through a dividing valve; Fig. 2, #8; Paragraphs 0069-0070, Machine Translation) where the low and high concentration draw solution from the separation tank (Fig. 2, #3) are combined before being reused as the draw solution in forward osmosis (i.e., further comprising adding liquid to create additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution; Paragraph 0061, Machine Translation). Miura further teaches that the purpose of the recycling and heat exchanger is to reduce the energy cost of cooling the draw solution (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Miura is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water treatment method using forward osmosis and reverse osmosis (Paragraphs 0001-0003, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Oasys in view of McGinnis in view of Helm in view of Kang with the recycle and heat exchanger as taught by Miura because the recycle and heat exchanger would reduce the energy cost of cooling the draw solution.
Regarding Claim 8, Oasys further teaches that significant improvements in thermal desalination can be made with the use of a heat pump (Paragraph 0049).
McGinnis further teaches the use of a heat pump to assist an existing source of thermal energy to the membrane devices (i.e., further comprising, directing the additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution to a heat pump; Abstract and Col. 6, Line 66 to Col. 7, Line 12).
Miura further teaches that it is desired to cool the draw solution to a desired temperature before being reused (i.e., to cool a temperature of the additional diluted ammonium bicarbonate solution to form a cooler diluted ammonium bicarbonate; Paragraphs 0069-0070, Machine Translation).
McGinnis also teaches that a dilute draw solution can be used to absorb the gases that are stripped out of a dilute draw solution coming from the outlet of a forward osmosis system (i.e., and then redirecting the cooler diluted ammonium bicarbonate to the hydrophobic membrane to condense gases into ions; Col. 25, Line 65 to Col. 26, Line 30).
Regarding Claim 9, Miura further teaches where the low and high concentration draw solution from the separation tank (Fig. 2, #3) are combined before being reused as the draw solution in forward osmosis (i.e., further comprising, the traceable amounts of the ammonium bicarbonate ions joining with the ammonium bicarbonate ions emitted from the draw side of the hydrophobic membrane housing to form the concentrated ammonium bicarbonate solution and directing the concentrated ammonium bicarbonate solution to the draw side of the FO membrane housing; Paragraph 0061, Machine Translation).
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777