DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on May 6, 2026 incorporating the amendments and arguments filed on April 9, 2026, 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Regarding the annotated sheet, the objection has been withdrawn.
As to Applicant’s arguments that the claims have been amended to remove the language regarding pressure losses (Remarks, Page 8 (“Pg”)), pressure loss language has been removed from Claim 12 yet Claim 1 still contains language regarding pressure losses and the drawing objection is directed towards failure to show a structure leading to those pressure losses.
As to Applicant's assertion that connection supply pipe is shown as central supply pipe 10, the specification indicates the structure labeled as 10 constitutes a "liquid supply path" not the claimed "connection supply pipe" (Paragraph 99 (“Pr”)).
Specification
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Pg9-10), filed April 9, 2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, based on the accompanying USPTO human translation the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 1 and 12 Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s assertion that paragraphs 63 and 86 support the de gasification units are the same (Remarks, Pg11-12), these paragraphs do not state what characteristic the word “same” applies to and could be anything from color density, type of membrane or some other unknown feature. Applicant’s arguments that same “reasonably implies” and “would naturally read” structural similarity is speculation. Moreover, Applicant quotes “all-the-same-units” in paragraph 86 yet no such language exists in paragraph 86 of the application as filed. Thus, Applicant lacks evidence to support the argument yet argument cannot supplant evidence, see MPEP 2145(I).
Claim 14 Rejection Under 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Pg9-10), filed April 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, based on the accompanying USPTO human translation the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12-14 Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Pg13), filed April 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC § 112(b) with respect to pressure losses all being the same have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 with respect to pressure losses in an outer region degasification unit having a larger pressure loss than an inner region degasification unit as recited in Claim 1 (Remarks, Pg13-14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s citations to the specification do not support the argument as paragraphs 10, 77, and 78 relate to flow rate not pressure loss, paragraph 11 notes larger pressure losses in an inner region opposite of that claimed, and paragraph 79 is about assumptions. Further, Applicant’s assertion that the specification supports a relationship between pressures losses and outer and inner regions does not identify any structure.
Claim 1 has been amended to delete “in a case in which” and thus the rejection based thereon withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 with respect to Claim 3 (Remarks, Pg14-15) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's provides quotes from paragraphs 103 and 104 yet these are not the same paragraphs as originally filed on June 24, 2021. As such, Applicant has not provided any evidence to support the argument yet argument cannot supplant evidence, see MPEP 2145(I).
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 with respect to Claim 4 (Remarks, Pg15-17) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to Applicant’s reliance upon paragraphs 10 and 11 supporting specific structure, these paragraphs do not provide specific structure to support the configured language of Claim 4. As such, Applicant has not provided any evidence to support the argument yet argument cannot supplant evidence, see MPEP 2145(I).
Claim 6 has been amended and the rejection withdrawn yet the amendment gives rise to a new rejection as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (Remarks, Pg23), it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the relation between liquid flows and pressures) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant's argument that the inventors recognized empirical flow behavior (Remarks, Pg23), the fact that the inventors have recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the amended claims and the degasification units being the same (Remarks, Pg24), these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons detailed in the rejections below.
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 features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The configuration where pressure losses of liquid depend on a distance from a central axis of the housing as recited in Claim 1;
The connection supply pipe between degasification modules as recited in the Claim 1;
The configuration wherein pressure loss of the liquid in the inner degasification unit is larger than the pressure loss in the outer degasification unit as recited in Claim 4; and,
The configuration wherein the pressure loss through the degasification unit increases when the distance of the degasification unit from the central axis decreases as 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 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 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, as the distance of a degasification unit from the central axis decreases, the pressure loss of the liquid flowing through that degasification unit increases”; 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 claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
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 degasification units are the same yet neither the claim, specification as filed, nor drawings as filed define what is meant by the limitation “same” and there is no indication of any such structural configuration. Further, pressure losses depend on the type of liquid and process variables such as temperature, flow rate, viscosity which have not been recited. 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.
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 as the distance of a degasification unit decreases from the central axis, the pressure loss increases 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. Moreover, pressure losses depend on the type of liquid and process variables such as temperature, flow rate, viscosity which have not been recited. For purposes of examination, the entire clause will be interpreted as requiring a pressure loss anywhere in the structure.
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 the
PNG
media_image1.png
363
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
same (Pr11,29,34,123 (note liquid flow, claim interpretation, and 112(b) analysis supra), and wherein, 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, as the distance of a degasification unit from the central axis decreases, the pressure loss of the liquid flowing through that degasification unit (see Claim 1 analysis supra regarding the higher pressure influx through Miyazawa L810 above the units facing the opening of L810 and resultant pressure loss, 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 the same in any manner, 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.
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.
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
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