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 Amendment
The Amendment filed December 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 102(a)(2) and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 31st, 2024. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (WO-2012057900-A1) in view of Larsen (US-8101074-B2) and further in view of Zhou (CN103449571A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a water purification cartridge (“multi-leaf reverse osmosis element”) comprising: a central core (Anderson abstract “core frame”) comprising at least a first pair of permeate water tubes (Anderson par. [0024] #102 Fig.1) disposed about a central channel (Anderson par. [0024] #106 in Fig. 1); and a membrane assembly (Anderson par. [0026] “leaf elements”) wrapped around and covering the central core (Anderson par. [0026] Fig.2), the membrane assembly comprising at least a first membrane structure (“permeate carrier”, the “semi-permeable membrane”, and the “feed spacer”) wrapped around a first permeate water tube (Anderson par. [0026] Fig.2), thereby creating a first permeate water tube assembly, and a second membrane structure (only containing the permeate carrier, and the semi-permeable membrane) wrapped around a second permeate water tube (par. [0026] Fig.2), thereby creating a second permeate water tube assembly, wherein each permeate water tube forms a first flow channel through an interior of the permeate water tube (Anderson par. [0027]), wherein each permeate water tube has an outer wall including at least one guide groove extending along the direction of water flow (while Fig. 1 depicts all of the perforations (#104) as circular holes, the disclosure which describes the perforations in par. [0023] states that they "may include circular holes, longitudinal slits, transverse slits and the like" and where longitudinal slits are elected these would be a guide groove including an opening extending along the direction of the water flow, this is not interpreted to limit the perforations to any one of the mentioned shapes), the at least one guide groove including a groove opening such that the at least one guide groove is fluidly connected with the first flow channel (Anderson #104 perforations which form longitudinal slits (par. [0023]) to create a groove would inherently possess an opening and Anderson discloses that such perforations “facilitate the flow of the permeate into the permeate tube 102 from the leaf”).
Anderson however, does not expressly disclose that the first membrane leaf has a first membrane type and the second membrane leaf has a second membrane type different from the first membrane type. Also, while Anderson teaches that the perforations may include “circular holes, longitudinal slits, transverse slits and the like" and where longitudinal slits are elected these would be a guide groove including an opening along the direction of the water flow, Anderson does not explicitly point out the guide groove inherent within the longitudinal slits.
Larsen disclose that a permeate tube may be provided on the outside wall of the permeate tube with one of more grooves forming flow channels and that such grooves transport permeate to the interior of the permeate tube (Larsen cols. 2 and 4). Larsen further teaches that the grooves may extend along the length of the tube and may be helical (Larsen cols. 2 and 5 and claim 1).
Zhou discloses a water treatment apparatus including both reverse osmosis membrane elements and nanofiltration membrane elements, wherein the reverse osmosis membrane elements and nanofiltration membrane elements are disposed within the same pressure vessel (Zhou p. 8 last par. of translation and Fig. 4). Zhou further discloses producing first product water from the reverse osmosis membrane element(s) and second product water from the nanofiltration membrane element(s), and combining the product waters, thereby teaching the use of different membrane types within a common module to obtain complementary purification characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane assemblies of Anderson such that a first permeate water tube assembly employs a first membrane type (e.g., reverse osmosis) and a second permeate water tube assembly employs a second membrane type (e.g., nanofiltration), as taught by Zhou, in order to obtain the known benefits of hybrid RO/NF purification within a single pressure vessel or module, while utilizing the compact multi-permeate-tube cartridge architecture of Anderson. It would further have been obvious to provide the permeate water tubes of Anderson with the outer-wall guide grooves as taught by Larsen to improve permeate transport into the interior of the permeate tubes.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1, wherein the first membrane structure comprises a first functional layer (permeate carrier), a filtering layer (semi-permeable membrane) and a second functional layer (feed spacer)(par. [0026]) and wherein the first and second functional layers are different (par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 2, wherein the first membrane type is a reverse osmosis membrane (by suggestion of Zhou p. 4 the first membrane type is a reverse osmosis membrane type).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1, wherein the second membrane structure comprises a first functional layer (Anderson “permeate carrier”) and a filtering layer (Anderson “semi-permeable membrane”) (par. [0026] Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1, wherein the second membrane type comprises a nanofiltration membrane (by suggestion of Zhou p. 4 the second membrane type is a nanofiltration membrane).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1 further comprising a first end cap on a first end of the cartridge and a second end cap on the second end of the cartridge. (Anderson par. [0008] and shown in on the first and second end in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first end cap and second end cap comprises: a main body having a front side and a rear side (Anderson shown in Fig. 1, 5A and 5B), a permeate water outlet (Anderson “permeate discharge port” par. [0028]) and a concentrate water outlet (Anderson “retentate discharge port” par. [0028]) on the front side of the main body, and a permeate water inlet and a concentrate water inlet on the rear side of the main body (Anderson shown in Fig. 5A), wherein the concentrate water inlet is fluidly connected with the concentrate water outlet. (The inlet and outlet are formed on opposite sides of the same columnar interface of the body shown in Anderson Figs. 5A and 5B and therefore are fluidically connected.)
PNG
media_image1.png
986
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 9, wherein the permeate water outlet and concentrate water outlet are circular. (Anderson illustrated in figs. 5A and 5B)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 10, wherein the concentrate water outlet is located on the outside of the permeate water outlet. (Figs. 5A and 5B show that the concentrate water outlet is located on the outside of the permeate water inlets, not inside them.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 9, wherein the permeate water inlet comprises multiple permeate water inlets and the concentrate water inlet is a single concentrate water inlet. (Anderson shows in Fig. 5A where the permeate inlets #110 are indicated on the inlet side of end cap and the single concentrate water inlet is indicated on the inlet side of the cap #112.)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 12, wherein the multiple permeate water inlets surround the single concentrate water inlet. (Anderson shows in Fig. 5A where the permeate inlets #110 are indicated on the inlet side of end cap and the single concentrate water inlet is indicated on the inlet side of the cap #112.)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 9, wherein the rear side of the main body (Anderson Fig. 5A) has a permeate water connection column (Anderson “permeate tubes” #102 Fig. 1) and a concentrate water connection column (Anderson “retentate channel” which is formed by the plurality of permeate tubes and leaf elements surrounding them (par. [0009])) extending along a central axis of the end cap and having flow channels inside (Anderson permeate tubes and retentate channel provide flow channels).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 14, wherein the central channel (Anderson par. [0025] retentate channel possesses a discharge port for discharging retentate from the retentate channel) forms a second flow channel, and wherein the membrane assembly (“leaves”) has an outer surface (over the core frame) forming a third flow channel (Anderson par. [0024] “spiral feed flow RO element”.)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 15, wherein the first flow channel (Anderson par. [0027] flow of the permeate into the permeate tubes) is connected with the permeate water inlet (Anderson Fig. 5A and explained above) and the second flow channel is connected with the concentrate water inlet. (Anderson Fig. 5A and explained above.)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1 comprising a second pair of permeate water tubes. (Anderson par. [0026] and Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 17, wherein the membrane assembly comprises at least two first membrane structures, each of the first membrane structures (permeate carrier, the semi-permeable membrane, and the feed spacer) wrapped around a respective first permeate water tube (Anderson par. [0026] Fig.2) of each of the first and second pairs of permeate water tubes (Anderson Fig. 2 both labeled 102A), and at least two second membrane structures (only containing the “permeate carrier”, and the “semipermeable membrane”), each of the second membrane structures wrapped around a respective second permeate water tube (Anderson par. [0026] Fig.2) of each of the first and second pairs of permeate water tubes (Anderson Fig. 2 both labeled 102B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1, wherein each of the permeate water tubes has a non-circular cross-sectional shape. (Anderson claim 2 describes the plurality of permeate tubes have one of a circular cross section, a triangular cross section, a tear-drop shaped cross section, and an airfoil shaped cross section).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 19, wherein the non-circular cross-sectional shape is generally a tear-drop shape (Anderson claim 2 describes the plurality of permeate tubes have one of a circular cross section, a triangular cross section, a tear-drop shaped cross section, and an airfoil shaped cross section).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 20, wherein each permeate water tube has an outer wall, a front wall, an inner wall, and a back wall, wherein the outer wall and front wall taper toward one another to form a pointed transition and gradually open away from one another to meet with the back wall and inner wall, respectively, wherein the back wall is gradually rounded, and wherein the distance between the outer wall and the inner wall gradually increases from the backwall until a midpoint and then decreases at a greater rate until the inner wall transitions to the front wall.
(Anderson-claim 2 describes the plurality of permeate tubes have one of a circular cross
section, a triangular cross section, a tear-drop shaped cross section, and an airfoil shaped cross
section. Where the tear-drop shaped cross section is selected the permeate water tube has an
outer wall, a front wall, an inner wall, and a back wall, wherein the outer wall and front wall
taper toward one another to form a pointed transition and gradually open away from one
another to meet with the back wall and inner wall, respectively, wherein the back wall is
gradually rounded, and wherein the distance between the outer wall and the inner wall
gradually increases from the backwall until a midpoint and then decreases at a greater rate
until the inner wall transitions to the front wall.).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 21.
The combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou does not disclose further wherein the front wall has a contour corresponding to that of the back wall such that for two adjacent permeate water tubes the front wall of a first of the two adjacent permeate water tubes smoothly transitions to the back wall of a second of the two adjacent permeate water tubes.
Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of two adjacent
permeate water tubes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to rearrange two adjacent permeate water tubes, since it has
been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the
device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the
permeate water tubes for the purpose of ensuring that enough space is left for each of the
tubes and the other components within the invention. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70
(CCPA 1950) MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 1, wherein the central core ( Anderson abstract “core frame”) is cylindrical. (Anderson Fig.1 shows a view of the central core extending from one endcap to the next which can be seen that at least a portion of which is cylindrical.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (WO-2012057900-A1) in view of Larsen (US-8101074-B2) and further in view of Zhou (CN103449571A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Setti (US-4301013-A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 2, wherein the first functional layer is a permeate water carrier layer and the second functional layer is a feed water spacer layer. (par. [0026])
The combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou does not disclose that the feed water spacer layer is a mesh spacer.
Setti discloses a feed channel spacer of open-mesh material. (Col. 3, lines 46-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the feed water mesh spacer layer of Setti with the water purification cartridge of the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou. There would be motivation to do so as Setti also discloses that "use of the open- mesh-strand material provides many advantages, both in manufacture and operation" (Col. 4 lines 5-6).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (WO-2012057900-A1) in view of Larsen (US-8101074-B2) and further in view of Zhou (CN103449571A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang Z, Shi X, Wang R, Xiao A, Wang Y. Ultra-permeable polyamide membranes harvested by covalent organic framework nanofiber scaffolds: a two-in-one strategy. Chem Sci. 2019 Aug 13; 10(39):9077-9083, hereafter referred to as "Zhang".
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou discloses the water purification cartridge of claim 2.
The combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou does not disclose that wherein the filtering layer comprises a substrate layer and a separation layer.
Zhang discloses that Polyamide-based thin-film composite nanofiltration membranes are widely used for potable water decontamination (p. 9077 abstract). These nanofiltration membranes include a substrate (support layers p. 9077 line 1 of col. 2) layer as well as a separation layer (p. 9077 col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teaching of Zhang with the water filtration cartridge of the combination of Anderson, Larsen and Zhou. There would have been motivation to do so as disclosed by Zhang, they possess "high structural stability, effective separation capability and up-scalable processability" (p. 9077 col. 1).
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779