DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on July 21, 2026, and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-22 and 24-27 stand rejected. Claims 1-23 and 25-27 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the drawings show certain structures necessary to understand the claimed invention and need not show other structures because they would be reasonable known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, Page 9 (“Pg”)). Applicant also argues for a particular interpretation of the drawing requirements detailed in 37 CFR § 1.83(a) (Pg9-10).
First, the structures Applicant argues are shown drawings are not the basis for structures missing from the drawings upon which the objections are based. Second, Applicant offers no evidence of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand yet argument cannot supplant evidence (see MPEP 2145(I)). Third, Applicant’s argument for a specific interpretation of regulations is not properly presented in an ex parte examination proceeding. As such the objections stand
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12 and 19
The claims have been amended and the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) withdrawn.
Claim 24
Claim 24 has been canceled and the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) withdrawn.
Claims 6 and 16-19
The claims have been amended and the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) withdrawn.
Claim 21
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to indicate the initial brine source comes from a salt lake or salt playa eliminates any indefiniteness (Remarks, Pg11). The indefiniteness remains due to the contradiction between brine and salt playa. Brine is a salt water solution (see Britannica entry for brine) while a salt playa is dry and contains no water (see “Aim” section in University of Southampton).
Claim 24
Claim 24 has been canceled and the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) withdrawn.
Claim 25
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument that Claim 15 provides sufficient structure for the different precipitators recited in Claim 25 (Remarks, Pg12-13), as Applicant admits the structures are only sometimes identical and may be different (Remarks (“the physical structure of each precipitator would often be identical or nearly so”), such that the structure references is not clear and the indefiniteness rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4-11
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents arguments directed towards amended Claim 1 and to the extent those argument relate to the newly added limitations, those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons detailed in the rejections below.
As to Applicant’s argument that Miller does not disclose the structure required to inject or adjust a pH-adjusting reagent (Remarks, Pg14), the only structures disclosed by Applicant that perform this function are the pipe 162 as seen in Figure 1, pipe 262 as seen in Figure 2, and generic process line 462 in Figure 4. Given Miller discloses pipe and lines as seen in the Figure, Miller discloses the claimed structure.
Applicant argues regarding how the structure disclosed works (Remarks, Pg14); however, Applicant offers no evidence to support this argument yet argument cannot supplant evidence (MPEP 2145(I)). Further, Applicant’s argument is directed towards the intended use yet "a statement of intended use … does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus over the reference," In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962).
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, Pg14), 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). Moreover, Applicant again offers evidence to support the argument regarding both Miller and Shukla (Remarks, Pg14).
As to Applicant’s argument that the combination of Miller and Shukla does not teach or suggest all the claim limitations (Remarks, Pg14-15), "[t]he prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations [and t]he mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention' s nonobviousness [because t]he gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art" (MPEP 2141(III) (quotes and cites omitted))
Claims 2, 3, 12-14
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers no reasons these claims are not obvious other than those offered with respect to the claims from which they depend. Thus, the rejections stand.
Claims 15-18, 20-22, and 24-27
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the operation disclosed by Miller (Remarks, Pg16), the argument is directed towards the intended use yet "a statement of intended use … does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus over the reference," In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962).
As to Applicant’s argument that Miller does not disclose serial precipitators (Remarks, Pg16), Miller has not been relied upon for this disclosure.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, Pg17), 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). Moreover, Applicant again offers evidence to support the argument regarding both Miller and Shukla (Remarks, Pg14).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding a generalized rationale as to the effect of pH on calcium sulfate solubility (Remarks, Pg17), a review of the obviousness rationale in the Office action Mailed on April 21, 2026 indicates this is not the complete rationale but only a portion of the obviousness statement.
Claim 19
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers no reasons this claim is not obvious other than those offered with respect to the claims from which it depend. Thus, the rejection stands.
Response to Amendment
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 following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The diffuse air inlet as recited in Claim 2;
The chain and flight collector, plow assembly, floor sludge hopper, sludge pump, hydrocyclone assisted underflow, jet assisted underflow, screw conveyor, inclined plates, and filter media recited in Claim 4; and
The pump and valve recited in Claim 6.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites a controller on a pump and a valve yet nothing in the specification as filed indicates a pump or valve controller.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 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 21 recites brine from a salt playa yet a salt playa contains no water while brine is a salt water liquid rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as any source of salt wet or dry.
Claim 25 recites numerous specific mineral precipitators yet nothing in the claim, written description, or drawings indicates what structure constitutes specific mineral precipitators.
Claims not specifically mentioned contain the same indefinite limitations of the claims identified above from which they depend and thus are also rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, U.S. Patent No. 3,168,379 (“Miller”) in view of Shukla, et al., “Effect of pH on the Solubility of CaSO4 • 2H2O in Aqueous NaCl Solutions and Physicochemical Solution Properties at 35 °C,” J. Chem Eng. Data, Vol. 53, 2797-2800, 2008 (“Shukla”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-11, Miller discloses a brine mineral precipitator comprising a settling tank (Fig., item 19, C4/L67); a solid collection mechanism in a lower portion of the settling tank (Fig. (note lower conical portion of tank 19)); a solids outlet in the lower portion of the settling tank (Fig., item 25, C5/L10-14); a weir outlet configured to control outflow of brine from an upper portion of the settling tank (Fig. item 27, C5/L14-16); a recirculation pathway operatively coupled to a recirculation pump configured to draw brine and solids upward from the lower portion to the upper portion of the settling tank (Fig. (note circulation flow path through pump 26 and piping 28 and 31), C5/L14-24); and a brine inlet connected to the recirculation pathway and to a brine source, configured to direct brine into the recirculation pathway (Fig. (note line leading into tank 19 from brine source 10 in fluidic connection with recirculation pathway), C4/L49-53).
Miller does not disclose an adjustable weir outlet; or a reagent inlet connected to the recirculation pathway and to a source of a pH-adjusting reagent, configured to inject the pH-adjusting reagent into the recirculation pathway to be mixed with the brine and to adjust a pH of the brine to a target precipitation pH at which a dissolved mineral constituent precipitates from the brine as precipitated solids recoverable through the solids outlet.
Shukla also relates to brines having solids and discloses those solids comprising calcium sulfate are dependent on pH (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to combine an adjustable weir with the settling tank disclosed by Miller because such a weir allows for different liquid levels while avoiding solids exiting the settling tank by other than the solids removal outlet. It would have also been obvious to control the pH in the device disclosed by Miller because, according to Shukla, the solubility of calcium sulfate depends on the pH (Abstract) and, according to Miller, keeping calcium sulfate as solid allows for purer brine (C57-61) while Miller also discloses the same structure used to inject and adjust a pH-adjusting reagent, namely pipes and process lines as seen in the Figure.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 4: wherein the solids collection mechanism is one or more of a clarifier rake, traveling scraper, chain and flight collector, plow assembly, conical bottom floor, floor sludge hopper, sludge pump, hydrocyclone assisted underflow, jet assisted underflow, screw conveyor, inclined plates, and filter media (Miller, Fig.). Claim 5: a pH sensor configured to measure a pH of brine in the settling tank (Shukla, Abstract (note sensor required to measure and obtain pH)). Claim 7: a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of brine in the settling tank (Shukla, Pg2798/C1). Claim 8: wherein the pH-adjusting reagent comprises carbon dioxide, a liquid solution, or a combination thereof (Miller, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)). Claim 9: wherein the reagent inlet is a gaseous reagent inlet configured to inject one or more gaseous reagents into the recirculation pathway (Miller, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)). Claim 10: a liquid reagent inlet connected to the recirculation pathway and to a source of a liquid reagent, configured to inject the liquid reagent into the recirculation pathway to be mixed with the brine (Shukla, Abstract (note controlling solubility of calcium sulfate via pH control obvious and no specific structure required for injecting reagent)). Claim 11: wherein the liquid reagent comprises a catalyst, a seeding agent, a coagulant, a flocculant, an anti-scaling agent, an anti-fouling agent, an anti-foaming agent, a base, an acid, or a combination thereof (Miller, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, U.S. Patent No. 3,168,379 (“Miller”) in view of Shukla, et al., “Effect of pH on the Solubility of CaSO4 • 2H2O in Aqueous NaCl Solutions and Physicochemical Solution Properties at 35 °C,” J. Chem Eng. Data, Vol. 53, 2797-2800, 2008 (“Shukla”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanlon, European Publication No. EP 1197474A1 (“Hanlon”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, the combination of Miller and Shukla discloses the brine mineral precipitator of Claim 1 except a diffuse air inlet in the lower portion of the settling tank.
Hanlon also relates to a liquid and solids tank and discloses a diffuse air inlet in the lower portion of the settling tank (Fig. 1, item 27, Paragraph 24 (“Pr”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by the combination of Miller and Shukla with the air diffuser disclosed by Hanlon because, according to Hanlon, the diffuser allows for the separation of the solids and liquid (Pr24).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 14: wherein the recirculation pathway is a draft tube centrally oriented within the settling tank (Hanlon, Fig. 2, item 21, Pr21).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, U.S. Patent No. 3,168,379 (“Miller”) in view of Shukla, et al., “Effect of pH on the Solubility of CaSO4 • 2H2O in Aqueous NaCl Solutions and Physicochemical Solution Properties at 35 °C,” J. Chem Eng. Data, Vol. 53, 2797-2800, 2008 (“Shukla”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhalekar, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0060452 (“Bhalekar”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combination of Miller and Shukla discloses the brine mineral precipitator of Claim 1 except a corrosion-resistant lining on an interior surface of the settling tank, wherein the corrosion-resistant lining comprises nylon, epoxy resin, or a combination thereof.
Bhalekar also relates to tank containing water and discloses a corrosion-resistant lining on an interior surface of the settling tank, wherein the corrosion-resistant lining comprises nylon, epoxy resin, or a combination thereof (Pr54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by the combination of Miller and Shukla with the lining disclosed by Bhalekar because, according to Bhalekar, the lining provides both chemical and corrosion resistance (Pr54).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 12: a plurality of heat exchange tubes extending inward from an inner surface of an outer wall of the settling tank configured to heat or cool the brine in the settling tank (Bhalekar, Fig. 1, items 202, Pr64).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, U.S. Patent No. 3,168,379 (“Miller”) in view of Shukla, et al., “Effect of pH on the Solubility of CaSO4 • 2H2O in Aqueous NaCl Solutions and Physicochemical Solution Properties at 35 °C,” J. Chem Eng. Data, Vol. 53, 2797-2800, 2008 (“Shukla”) and Bhalekar, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0060452 (“Bhalekar”) as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Drake, U.S. Patent No. 2,895,508 (“Drake”).
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
The combination of Miller, Shukla, and Bhalekar discloses the brine mineral precipitator of Claim 12 except wherein the heat exchange tubes comprise serrated fins extending radially from the heat exchange tubes.
Drake also relates to heat exchangers in a fluid and discloses wherein the heat exchange tubes comprise serrated fins extending radially from the heat exchange tubes (Figs. 1-3, C2/L34-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by the combination of Miller, Shukla, and Bhalekar with the fins disclosed by Drake because, according to Drake, the fins provide increased surface area for improved heat exchange results (C2/L39-45).
Claims 15-19, 20-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, U.S. Patent No. 3,168,379 (“Miller”) in view of Hanlon, European Publication No. EP 1197474A1 (“Hanlon”) and further in view of Shukla, et al., “Effect of pH on the Solubility of CaSO4 • 2H2O in Aqueous NaCl Solutions and Physicochemical Solution Properties at 35 °C,” J. Chem Eng. Data, Vol. 53, 2797-2800, 2008 (“Shukla”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 15-19, 21, 22, and 25-27, Miller discloses a brine processing system, comprising an individual brine mineral precipitator comprising a settling tank (Fig., item 19, C4/L67); a solids outlet in a lower portion of the settling tank (Fig., item 25, C5/L10-14); a weir outlet configured to control outflow of brine from an upper portion of the settling tank (Fig. item 27, C5/L14-16); and a brine inlet configured to introduce brine into the settling tank (Fig. (note line leading into tank 19 from brine source 10), C4/L49-53).
Miller does not disclose an adjustable weir outlet; a plurality of brine mineral precipitators connected in series; a reagent inlet configured to introduce a pH-adjusting reagent from a source of the pH-adjusting reagent into the settling tank to be mixed with the brine and to adjust a pH of the brine to a target precipitation pH at which a dissolved mineral constituent precipitates from the brine as precipitated solids recoverable through the solids outlet; or wherein a first brine mineral precipitator of the plurality of brine mineral precipitators receives brine from an initial brine source through its brine inlet, and wherein subsequent brine mineral precipitators in the series receive brine from the adjustable weir outlet of a previous brine mineral precipitator in the series.
Hanlon also relates to processing liquids and solids and discloses a plurality of tanks in series (Pr24).
Shukla also relates to brines having solids and discloses those solids comprising calcium sulfate are dependent on pH (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to combine an adjustable weir with the settling tank disclosed by Miller because such a weir allows for different liquid levels while avoiding solids exiting the settling tank by other than the solids removal outlet. It would have further been obvious to combine the brine processing system disclosed by Miller with the series of tanks disclosed by Hanlon because, according to Hanlon, serial tanks allow for further processing (Pr24) with different processes to occur in each tank (Pr5,8,9 (noting use of serial tanks known in art)) which would allow for precipitating out more than a single mineral. It would have also been obvious to control the pH in the device disclosed by Miller and Hanlon because, according to Shukla, the solubility of calcium sulfate depends on the pH (Abstract) and, according to Miller, keeping calcium sulfate as solid allows for purer brine (C57-61) while Miller also discloses the same structure used to inject and adjust a pH-adjusting reagent, namely pipes and process lines as seen in the Figure.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 16: wherein one or more of the brine mineral precipitators is configured to increase or reduce pH of the brine compared to a previous brine mineral precipitator (see Claim 15 analysis regarding need to adjust pH), and wherein one or more of the brine mineral precipitators comprises a pH sensor configured to measure a pH of brine in the settling tank of the one or more of the brine mineral precipitators (Shukla, Abstract (note sensor required to measure and obtain pH)). Claim 17: a controller in communication with the pH sensor configured to change an amount of the pH-adjusting reagent that is introduced into the settling tank of the one or more of the brine mineral precipitators to achieve a predetermined pH level in the brine (Shukla, Pg2798/C1 (note use of controller obvious)). Claim 18: wherein one or more of the brine mineral precipitators comprises a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of brine in the settling tank of the one or more of the brine mineral precipitators (Shukla, Pg2798/C1). Claim 19: wherein one or more of the brine mineral precipitators comprises a plurality of heat exchange tubes extending inward from an inner surface of an outer wall of the settling tank configured to heat or cool the brine in the settling tank of the one or more of the brine mineral precipitators (Bhalekar, Fig. 1, items 202, Pr64). Claim 20: controller in communication with the temperature sensor configured to adjust the heating or cooling of the brine to achieve a predetermined temperature in the brine (Shukla, Pg2798/C1 (note temperature control and controller obvious)). Claim 21: wherein the initial brine source is from a salt lake or a salt playa (Miller, C4/L37; see also 112(b) analysis above). Claim 22: wherein the outlet of a final brine mineral precipitator of the series is connected to the body of salt water to return the brine to the body of salt water (Miller, Fig. (note recirculation line); see also 112(b) analysis above), wherein the brine has a lower salinity when returned to the body of salt water than when initially removed from the body of salt water (Miller, Hanlon, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)). Claim 25: wherein the plurality of brine mineral precipitators comprise two or more brine mineral precipitators connected in series in this relative order: (1) a struvite precipitator, (2) a magnesium carbonate precipitator, (3) a heavy metal hydroxide precipitator, (4) a colemanite precipitator, (5) a calcium carbonate precipitator, (6) a lithium carbonate precipitator, (7) a magnesium oxide precipitator, (8) a potassium sulfate precipitator, (9) a potassium chloride precipitator, (10) a sodium carbonate precipitator, (11) a magnesium chloride precipitator, (12) a magnesium sulfate precipitator, and (13) an anhydrous sodium sulfate precipitator (Miller, Hanlon, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)). Claim 26: (1) the struvite precipitator contains brine at a pH from 8.0 to 9.0; or (2) the magnesium carbonate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 8.5 to 9.5 and injected carbon dioxide; or (3) the heavy metal hydroxide precipitator contains brine at a pH from 8.5 to 9.5; or (4) the colemanite precipitator contains brine at a pH from 9.2 to 9.5 and injected calcium hydroxide seeding agent; or (5) the calcium carbonate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 9.5 to 10.0 and a flocculant; or (6) the lithium carbonate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 10.5to11.0; or (7) the magnesium oxide precipitator contains brine at a pH from 10.5to11.5; or (8) the potassium sulfate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 7.0 to 8.0 and an injected coagulant; or (9) the potassium chloride precipitator contains brine at a pH from 7.0 to 8.0 and an injected flocculant; or (10) the sodium carbonate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 10.0to11.0; or (11) the magnesium chloride precipitator contains brine at a pH from 7.0 to 8.0 and injected non-ionic polyacrylamide; or (12) the magnesium sulfate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 7.0 to 8.0 and injected flocculant; or (13) the anhydrous sodium sulfate precipitator contains brine at a pH from 7.0 to 8.0; or a combination thereof (Miller, Hanlon, Shukla (note the material worked upon and intended use do not impart patentability, see MPEP 2115)). Claim 27: (8) the potassium sulfate precipitator maintains the brine at a temperature from 15 °C to 20 °C; or (9) the potassium chloride precipitator maintains the brine at a temperature from 10 °C to 12 °C; or (11) the magnesium chloride precipitator maintains the brine at a temperature from 4 °C to 6 °C; or (12) the magnesium sulfate precipitator maintains the brine at a temperature from 0°C to 5 °C; or (13) the anhydrous sodium sulfate precipitator maintains the brine at a temperature below 0 °C; or remaining precipitators maintain the brine at a temperature above 20 °C; or a combination thereof (Miller, Hanlon, Shukla, note that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does," Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
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 PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights