DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the arguments filed on September 4, 2025, and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 stand rejected. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 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 September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument that annotated sheets have been submitted with the response (Remarks, Page 8 (“Pg”)), no annotated sheets submitted.
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards differing pressure losses (Remarks, Pg8-10), yet the drawing objection is directed towards failure to show a structure where the pressure losses of liquid across all degasification units are all set to be the same as recited in Claims 1 and 12 and the connection supply pipe between degasification modules as recited in Claim 1.
Specification
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s assertion that verified translation have been submitted along with the arguments (Remarks, Pg10), nothing has been submitted. Moreover, a certified not verified translation is required and no such verified translation with the accompanying affidavit attesting to the accuracy has been provided (see 37 CFR 42.63(b)). Further, where an English translation has been required, that translation “must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate,” 37 CFR 1.55(g)(4) (see also MPEP 213-216, 2163.07, 37 CFR 1.52(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 1 and 12 Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s assertion that paragraphs 63 and 86 support the comparison of flow rates of liquid (Remarks, Pg11-12), these paragraphs do not state what characteristic the word “same” applies to. Further, Applicant admits that the use of the word “same” in the claim limitation “a case where all the degasification units are configured such that the pressure losses of the liquid are set to be the same” “does not refer to a case where the pressure losses of the liquid flowing through each degasification unit in the degasification module are the same” (Pg12).
Claim 14 Rejection Under 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s arguments regarding a “verified/certified translation“ (Remarks, Pg13), the required certified translation, which it not the same as a verified translations discussed supra, has not been submitted and the foreign priority document does not support the claim limitations “an injection” and “injecting.”
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s arguments that the rejected appear to be based on written description (Remarks, Pg14), these are separate rejections base upon failure to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 USC 112(b) not the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
As to Applicant’s reliance upon arguments previously presented regarding drawings, the specification, and the written description requirement (Remarks, Pg14), these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons previously articulated supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of Miyazawa with other references (Pg19) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
As to Applicant’s reliance upon what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand about the claimed invention (Remarks, Pg19), the claims are indefinite such that meaning of the claim is unclear and Applicant has not rebutted the interpretation put forth by the Office in light of that indefiniteness.
Finally, none of Applicant’s arguments are supported with cites to any evidence yet argument cannot supplant evidence (MPEP 2145(I)).
Claims 12 and 13
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies upon the same arguments addressed supra (Remarks, Pg20-21) and these arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because no “Annotated Sheets” have been filed as required in the prior Office action. 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.
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 configuration where pressure losses of liquid across all degasification units are all set to be the same as recited in Claims 1 and 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The drawings must also show the connection supply pipe between degasification modules as recited in the amendment to Claim 1 or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
The amendment filed April 2, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the addition of “injection” and “injecting” in paragraphs 21 and 116.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In Claim 1, “the plurality of degasification units are configured such that pressure losses of the liquid differ depending on a distance from a central axis of the housing so that a deviation of a flow rate of a liquid flowing through the plurality of degasification units is reduced as compared to a case where all the degasification units are configured such that the pressure losses of the liquid are set to be the same”;
In Claim 1, “the degasification unit disposed in the outer region is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the degasification unit closest to the outer region among the degasification units disposed in the inner region”;
In Claim 3, “the degasification unit that overlaps the inlet when seen in a direction along the central axis is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the degasification unit that does not overlap the inlet when seen in a direction along the central axis”;
In Claim 4, “the inner degasification unit is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the outer degasification unit”;
In Claim 6, “the degasification units disposed in the inner region are configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid increases as the degasification unit becomes closer to the central axis”; and,
In Claim 12, “all the degasification units are configured such that the pressure losses of the liquid are set to be the same, such that a deviation of a flow rate of a liquid flowing through the plurality of degasification units is reduced.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 are 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 claims 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite a comparative reduced liquid flow through the degasification units when pressure losses differ based upon distance from the central axis of the housing compared to a configuration of the degasification units where the pressure losses are set to be the same yet nothing in the specification as filed supports this limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “an injection” and “injecting” yet nothing in the specification as filed supports these limitations.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 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.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite a configuration of degasification units where the liquid pressure losses depend on a distance from the housing central axis such that flow rate deviation is less compared to when the pressure losses are set to be the same yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed indicate any such structural configuration rendering the clause regarding the reduction in the deviation of a flow rate indefinite. For purposes of examination, the entire clause will be interpreted as requiring a flow rate.
Claim 1 recites an outer region degasification unit being configured to have a liquid pressure loss larger than an inner region degasification unit yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed indicate any such structural configuration rendering the clause indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "in a case" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the inlet overlapping degasification being configured to have a liquid pressure loss larger than the degasification unit not overlapping the inlet yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed indicate any such structural configuration rendering the clause indefinite.
Claim 4 recites a configuration wherein the inner degasification unit has a larger liquid pressure loss that the outer degasification unit yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed indicate any such structural configuration rendering the clause indefinite.
Claim 6 recites a configuration wherein the inner degasification units have liquid a pressure loss that goes up when the degasification unit “becomes closer to the central axis” yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed indicate any such structural configuration or how a degasification can move to become closer to the central axis rendering the clause indefinite.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, Japanese Publication No. JP2007253105 (“Miyazawa”) in view of Suganuma, International Publication No. WO2016104155A1 (“Suganuma”), and further in view of Matsumoto, Japanese Publication No. JP2004082073A (“Matsumoto”) and Taylor, U.S. Publication No. US 2013/0327219A1 (“Taylor”). English machine translations have previously been provided and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14, Miyazawa discloses a degasification system (gas dissipating separation device with a plurality of membrane units for dissipating gas from liquid, par [0010-0011]) comprising: a plurality of degasification units configured to degasify a liquid (plurality of membrane units 810 for dissipating gas from liquid, par [0010-0011], figure 8); and a cylindrical housing configured to house the plurality of degasification units in parallel (gas dissipation structure 800 is cylindrical, parallel, par [0029], figures 7-8), wherein each of the plurality of degasification units includes a hollow fiber membrane bundle (hollow fiber membrane bundles 812, par [0119], figures 7-8) in which a plurality of hollow fiber membranes are bundled in a cylindrical shape (hollow fiber membranes bundled into a cylindrical shape, par [0119], figures 7-8) and a cylinder in which the hollow fiber membrane bundle is housed (hollow fiber membranes bundled into a cylindrical shape, inside cylindrical modules 810, par [0119], figures 8-9), wherein the housing has an inlet through which the liquid is supplied from outside (pipe L810, figure 8, par [0123]), an outlet through which the liquid is discharged to the outside (pipes 816a, 816b, and L819, par [0125-0126], figure 8), and a sealing portion which partitions an internal space of the housing into an upstream side region on the inlet side and a downstream side region on the outlet side via the plurality of degasification units (support plates 830a and 830b fixed in tank 820 par [0120], see figure 8 with 830a and 830b separating the inlet and outlet portions), and wherein plurality of degasification units are configured such that pressure losses of the liquid differ depending on a distance from a central axis of the housing so that a deviation of a flow rate of a liquid flowing through the plurality of degasification units is reduced as compared to a case where all the degasification units are configured such that the pressure losses of the liquid are set to
PNG
media_image1.png
363
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
be the same (Pr11,29,34,123 (note liquid flow and claim interpretation supra), and wherein, in a case in which a region from an inner peripheral surface of the housing to a position corresponding to 0.7 times an outer diameter of one of the degasification unit toward the central axis side is defined as an outer region (see annotated Fig. 9; see also 112(b) analysis supra) a region inside the outer region is defined as an inner region (see annotated Fig. 9), at least one degasification unit is disposed in the outer region, and remaining degasification units are disposed in the inner region (Fig. 9).
Miyazawa does not disclose a suction pipe communicating with an inside of the hollow fiber membranes and penetrating the housing to suction the inside of the hollow fiber membranes, wherein the degasification unit disposed in the outer region is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the degasification unit closest to the outer region among the degasification units disposed in the inner region, or wherein, in each of the degasification units, a plurality of degasification modules are connected, wherein each of the plurality of the degasification modules includes a hollow fiber membrane bundle having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes arranged around a liquid supply path through which a liquid is supplied and a cylinder which houses the hollow fiber membrane bundle and in which discharge ports for discharging the liquid are formed, and wherein the degasification unit has a connection supply pipe which connects the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules in series and in which openings through which the liquid passes are formed at positions corresponding to the plurality of degasification modules such that the liquid is supplied to the hollow fiber membrane bundles of the plurality of degasification modules in parallel.
Suganuma also relates to a degasification system and discloses a hollow fiber degassing module (lines 10-12), and also a suction pipe communicating with an inside of the hollow fiber membranes and penetrating the housing to suction the inside of the hollow fiber membranes (suction port 7a for sucking gas inside housing 4, hollow fiber module 3 inside housing 4, lines 228-236, figure 2).
Matsumoto also relates to a hollow fiber membrane module and filtration operation and discloses wherein the degasification unit disposed in the outer region is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the degasification unit closest to the outer region among the degasification units disposed in the inner region(top of Pg4, par [0002-0004]).
Taylor also relates to liquid degassing contactors with hollow fiber membrane bundles (par [0002], [0038]) and discloses wherein, in the degasification unit, a plurality of degasification modules are connected (two cartridges connected in Fig. 38), wherein each of the plurality of the degasification modules includes a hollow fiber membrane bundle having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes arranged around a liquid supply path through which a liquid is supplied (hollow fiber membrane bundles in cartridges, path in perforated pipe in center, Fig. 38, par [0029], [0048]) and a cylinder which houses the hollow fiber membrane bundle (bundle with cylindrical exterior surface, par [0060]) and in which discharge ports for discharging the liquid are formed (ports for fluid injection and withdraw, par [0065], gas ports for gas injection and withdraw, par [0068]), and wherein the degasification unit has a connection supply pipe which connects the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules in series (perforated pipe in center, connected in series, Fig. 38, par [0188]) and in which openings through which the liquid passes are formed at positions corresponding to the plurality of degasification modules such that the liquid is supplied to the hollow fiber membrane bundles of the plurality of degasification modules in parallel (holes in pipe to supply water to hollow fibers in parallel, par [0189], Fig. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the suction pipe disclosed by Suganuma into the system disclose by Miyazawa because, according to Suganuma, the suction pipe sucks gas from the inside of the housing (lines 229-330) and depressurizes the hollow fiber membrane (lines 281-282). It would have also been obvious to have incorporated the side inlet like that of Matsumoto into the system disclosed by Miyazawa and Suganuma because, according to Matsumoto, having the inlet in the side of the housing would prevent only the upper portions of the hollow fibers receiving pressure, which would prevent damage (par [0002]). This would apply to Miyazawa in replacing a top/bottom inlet with a side inlet to prevent the breakage of the top hollow fibers. In turn, the outer units would receive a higher initial pressure influx than the inner units, resulting in the outer units having a larger pressure loss than the units in the inner region. It further would have been obvious to have incorporated the features above disclosed by Taylor in to the system disclosed by the combination of Miyazawa, Suganuma, and Matsumoto because, according to Taylor, the center tube/piping allows for gases to remix and equalize within the length of the module and the end result is a significant increase in overall performance (par [0030], [0023])
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3:, wherein, among the plurality of degasification units, the degasification unit that overlaps the inlet when seen in a direction along the central axis is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the degasification unit that does not overlap the inlet when seen in a direction along the central axis (see Claim 1 and 112(b) analysis supra; also note that Matsumoto discloses that the hollow fiber membrane bundles facing the inflow of water endure an initial influx of liquid pressure (top of page 4, par [0002-0004]) and thus, as evidenced by Matsumoto, Miyazawa discloses that a higher pressure would initially be impacting the hollow fiber modules in the center directly facing the opening L810 when liquid enters (see figures 8-9), and since there are other modules not directly facing the opening L810, they would not endure the initial influx of pressure resulting in a higher pressure loss for the modules facing the opening L810 since there is a higher initial pressure influx than in the other modules surrounding the center). Claim 4: in the inner region, the plurality of degasification units have an inner degasification unit and an outer degasification unit which is farther from the central axis than the inner degasification unit (Miyazawa, Fig. 9), and the inner degasification unit is configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid therein is larger than that in the outer degasification unit (see Claims 1 or 3 for explanation of pressure). Claim 6: wherein the degasification units disposed in the inner region are configured such that the pressure loss of the liquid increases as the degasification unit becomes closer to the central axis (See Claim 1 analysis supra regarding the higher pressure influx through Miyazawa L810 above the units facing the opening of L810, also see labeled figure 9 above, some of the outer modules 810 are disposed in the outer region and all of the inner modules 810 are inside the inner region; see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 9: a liquid degasification method in the degasification system according to Claim 1, comprising: degasifying a liquid by supplying the liquid from the inlet to the plurality of degasification units (liquid distribution method in which liquid flow from the lower or upper opening and into the hollow fiber membranes and gas is dissipated in the hollow fiber membrane bundles, Miyazawa, par [0010-0011], [0130], Fig. 8), and depressurizing an inside of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes of each of the plurality of degasification units (gas released from hollow fiber membranes (Miyazawa, par [0033-0034]). Claim 14: a method for producing natural resources in the degasification system (Miyazawa, carbon dioxide or other gases, par [0132]) according to Claim 1, comprising: a degasification step of degasifying a liquid by supplying the liquid from the inlet to the plurality of degasification units (Miyazawa, liquid distribution method in which liquid flow from the lower or upper opening and into the hollow fiber membranes and gas is dissipated in the hollow fiber membrane bundles, par [0010-0011], [0130], Fig. 8) and depressurizing an inside of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes of each of the plurality of degasification units (Miyazawa, gas released from hollow fiber membranes, par [0033-0034]); and an injection step of injecting the liquid degasified in the degasification step into a natural resource mining site (Taylor, par [0036], removing carbon dioxide prior to mixed bed or EDI technology to eliminate or reduce chemical usage and improve water quality, “injecting” being the transfer to the EDI technology or the mixed bed).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, Japanese Publication No. JP2007253105 (“Miyazawa”) in view of Matsumoto, Japanese Publication No. JP2004082073A (“Matsumoto”), and in further view of Suganuma, International Publication No. WO2016104155A1 (“Suganuma”). English machine translations have previously been provided and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Miyazawa discloses a method for manufacturing a degasification system (hollow fiber membrane modules 810 installed in separation tank 820, par [0119], figure 8) comprising: preparing a plurality of degasification units (hollow fiber membranes 812 bundled into cylindrical shape, par [0119]), a housing which houses the plurality of degasification units and has an inlet through which a liquid is supplied from outside and an outlet through which the liquid is discharged to the outside (hollow fiber membrane modules 810 installed in separation tank 820, par [0119], liquid flows into separation tank 820 through pipe L810, liquid flows out through pipe L819, par [0126], figure 8); fixing the plurality of the degasification units to the housing with a sealing portion which partitions an internal space of the housing into an upstream side region on the inlet side and a downstream side region on the outlet side via the plurality of degasification units (support plates 830a and 830b fixed in tank 820 par [0120], see figure 8 with 830a and 830b separating the inlet and outlet portions).
Although the pressure differs in the hollow fiber membranes to the outside of the hollow fiber membranes (par [0034]), it is not clear if the pressure losses of the degasification units differ based on the distance from the central axis of the housing as compared to a case where all the degasification units are configured such that the pressure losses of the liquid are set to be the same, such that a deviation of a flow rate of a liquid flowing through the plurality of degasification units is reduced . Additionally, Miyazawa does not disclose a suction pipe.
Matsumoto discloses a hollow fiber membrane module and filtration operation. Matsumoto also discloses that the hollow fiber membrane bundles facing the inflow of water endure an initial influx of liquid pressure (top of page 4, par [0002-0004]). Therefore, as evidenced by Matsumoto, Miyazawa discloses that a higher pressure would initially be impacting the hollow fiber modules facing the opening L810 when liquid enters (see figures 8-9), and since there are other modules not directly facing the opening L810, they would not endure the initial influx of pressure. This would result in a higher pressure loss for the modules facing the opening L810 since there is a higher initial pressure influx than in the other modules surrounding the center. Moreover, Miyazawa discloses a flow rate and thus meets the limitation (par [0123]; see also 112(b) analysis above).
However, Miyazawa in view of Matsumoto does not disclose a suction pipe.
However, Suganuma discloses a hollow fiber degassing module (lines 10-12). Suganuma also discloses a suction pipe communicating with an inside of the hollow fiber membranes and penetrating the housing to suction the inside of the hollow fiber membranes (suction port 7a for sucking gas inside housing 4, hollow fiber module 3 inside housing 4, lines 228-236, figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the suction pipe like that of Suganuma into the system of Miyazawa in view of Matsumoto because, according to Suganuma, the suction pipe sucks gas from the inside of the housing (lines 229-330) and depressurizes the hollow fiber membrane (lines 281-282).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, Japanese Publication No. JP2007253105 (“Miyazawa”) in view of Matsumoto, Japanese Publication No. JP2004082073A (“Matsumoto”) and Suganuma, International Publication No. WO2016104155A1 (“Suganuma”) as applied to Claim 12, and in further view of Taylor, U.S. Publication No. US 2013/0327219A1 (“Taylor”). English machine translations have previously been provided and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Miyazawa in view of Matsumoto and Suganuma discloses the method for manufacturing a degasification system according to Claim 12, but does not disclose further comprising: preparing a plurality of degasification modules each having a hollow fiber membrane bundle having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes arranged around a liquid supply path through which a liquid is supplied and a cylinder which houses the hollow fiber membrane bundle and in which discharge ports for discharging the liquid are formed, and a connection supply pipe in which a plurality of openings through which the liquid passes are formed; and inserting the connection supply pipe into the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules to connect the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules in series by the connection supply pipe and disposing the plurality of openings at positions corresponding to the plurality of degasification modules such that the liquid is supplied to the hollow fiber membrane bundles of the plurality of degasification modules in parallel, to manufacture the degasification unit.
However, Taylor discloses liquid degassing contactors with hollow fiber membrane bundles (par [0002], [0038]). Taylor also discloses preparing a plurality of degasification modules each having a hollow fiber membrane bundle having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes arranged around a liquid supply path through which a liquid is supplied and a cylinder which houses the hollow fiber membrane bundle (cartridges with hollow fiber bundle inserted into housing with perforated center tube with liquid paths in center tube connectors, figure 38, par [0188], [0214-0218], [0029], [0048]) and in which discharge ports for discharging the liquid are formed (ports for fluid injection and withdraw, par [0065], gas ports for gas injection and withdraw, par [0068]), and a connection supply pipe in which a plurality of openings through which the liquid passes are formed (perforated pipe in center, connected in series, figure 38, par [0188-0189]); and inserting the connection supply pipe into the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules to connect the liquid supply paths of the plurality of degasification modules in series by the connection supply pipe (center tube connector connecting the perforated center tube, figure 38, par [0124], [0172]) and disposing the plurality of openings at positions corresponding to the plurality of degasification modules such that the liquid is supplied to the hollow fiber membrane bundles of the plurality of degasification modules in parallel, to manufacture the degasification unit (holes in pipe to supply water to hollow fibers in parallel, par [0189], figure 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the features above like that of Taylor in to the system of Miyazawa as evidenced by Matsumoto because, according to Taylor, the center tube/piping allows for gases to remix and equalize within the length of the module and the end result is a significant increase in overall performance (par [0030], [0023]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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