As noted in my comment above, (a) remains true also for incomplete spaces, because if $H$ is separable, so is the completion $\bar{H}$ (why?) and any orthonormal set in $H$ is also orthonormal in $\\bar{H}$, and hence countable by part (a) for complete spaces.
With the definition of a total set given in the comments, the claim is also true for incomplete spaces, because if the span of a set $M \subset H$ is dense in $H$, it is not hard to see that the $\Bbb{Q}$ span of $M$ is countable and dense in $H$, so that $H$ is separable. (If you use $\Bbb{C}$ as your field, use $\Bbb{Q}+\Bbb{Q}i$ instead of $\Bbb{Q}$).
But if you use the definition that a set $M$ is total if no element $x \in H$ with $x\neq 0$ is orthogonal to all of $M$, then the second claim fails for incomplete $H$, as is implied by GEdgar's answer to this question: A complete orthonormal system contained in a dense sub-space.. He constructs an inner product space such thy every orthonormal set is countable, but which is not separable. If we now take (using Zorn's Lemma) a maximal orthonormal set in that space, it will be total (with the alternative definition) and countable, but the space is not separable.