DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 SEPTEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11 SEPTEMBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 29 and the addition of new claims 40-41 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 29, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 SEPTEMBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 29, that the previously cited prior art does not teach the newly amended limitations of “wherein the at least one microfiltration membrane includes modifiers, mixed with a polymer of the at least one microfiltration membrane, to convert the at least one microfiltration membrane form being substantially hydrophobic to being substantially hydrophilic” and so claim 29 is now allowable (Arguments filed 11 SEPTEMBER 2025, Pages 5-7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 29 is not allowable in view of the newly cited prior art below.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 40-41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 29, “the microfiltration membrane” twice in line 19 of the claim should read “the at least one microfiltration membrane”.
In Claim 40, “the microfiltration membrane” in line 2 of the claim should read “the at least one microfiltration membrane”.
In Claim 41, “the microfiltration membrane” in line 2 of the claim should read “the at least one microfiltration membrane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29, 30, 35, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummins et al (International Patent No. WO 2011000052 A1) hereinafter Cummins, in view of Allen (US Patent No. 20040164005 A1) hereinafter Allen, in view of Gorrell et al (US Patent No. 20170166468 A1) hereinafter Gorrell in view of Henis et al (US Patent No. 4794002 A) hereinafter Henis.
Regarding Claim 29, Cummins teaches the complex overall system and process described in the instant claim. Allen, Gorrell, and Henis are brought in to demonstrate that details specific to each particular step/individual apparatus element that are missing from Cummins are well known modifications in the art. Regarding complex processes and systems, individual components tend to be described at a higher level of detail.
Cummins teaches a process for treating an aqueous stream from a polymerization process (i.e., a method of removing contaminants from an aqueous material feed stream derived from a polymerization process) with the treated aqueous stream being recycled to the polymerization process (i.e., to form a recovered aqueous stream having a reduced contaminant concentration for re-use in another polymerization process; Abstract) where a centrate stream from a PVC production plant (i.e., providing an aqueous material feed stream) is fed to a water treatment plant (Fig. 2, #40) to reduce suspended solids and dissolved solids content (i.e., comprising one or more contaminants including particulate and non-particulate contaminants; Page 9, Lines 28-31 to Page 10, Lines 1-10) with the water treatment set up as a three stage process with step one using hydrocyclones to initially remove solids (i.e., centrifuging the aqueous material feed stream in a first hydrocyclone to form a first overflow stream and a first underflow stream wherein the first overflow stream comprises a reduced concentration of particulate contaminants compared to the first underflow stream), step two using microfiltration to remove suspended solids (i.e., passing the first overflow stream through at least one microfiltration membrane thereby forming a partially filtered aqueous material stream), and step three using reverse osmosis to removed dissolved solids (i.e., subjecting the partially filtered aqueous material stream to reverse osmosis to remove at least part of the non-particulate contaminants; Page 10, Lines 18-22). Cummins further teaches that permeate leaving the microfiltration stage is essentially free of suspended solids of size greater than 0.2 µm (i.e., to substantially remove particulate contaminants having a particle size larger than 0.5 µm; Page 11, Lines 32-33 to Page 12, Lines 1-3), that the water fed to the reverse osmosis membrane should be cooled to be below the maximum recommended membrane operating temperature (Page 12, Lines 22-27), and that the hydrocyclone assembly (Fig. 2, #44) has hydrocyclones (Fig. 2, #45) in two stages (Page 10, Lines 23-30).
Cummins does not explicitly teach the step of directing the first underflow stream to a second hydrocyclone to form a second overflow stream that is combinable with the aqueous material feed stream.
However, Allen teaches two hydrocyclones in sequence (Fig. 5, #505, 535) in which the underflow of the first stage separator (Fig. 5, #515) is fed to the underflow-fed separator (Fig. 5, #535) where the overflow of the underflow-fed separator is fed back into the feed stream (Fig. 5, #520) of the first stage separator (Paragraphs 0062-0064) for the purpose of improving density separation performance and controlling the particle size distribution of slurried media (Paragraph 0007).
Allen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to material separations and recycling plastics (Paragraph 0002) utilizing hydrocyclones (Paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two stage hydrocyclone system as taught by Cummins to feed the underflow of the first stage hydrocyclone to the second stage hydrocyclone and then recycle the overflow of the second hydrocyclone back to the feed as taught by Allen because the method taught by Allen would improve the density separation and control the particle size distribution.
Cummins in view of Allen does not teach performing reverse osmosis at a temperature higher than 50°C.
However, Gorrell teaches a high temperature membrane that can tolerate 170°F or 76.6 °C (i.e., performing reverse osmosis at a temperature higher than 50°C) with the benefit of allowing hot water reuse which results in significant savings of heat energy and natural gas energy (Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Gorrell is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a high temperature reverse osmosis membrane (Abstract) in the field of industrial and commercial wastewater filtration (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process for treating an aqueous stream from a polymerization process as taught by Cummins in view of Allen with the high temperature reverse osmosis membrane as taught by Gorrell because the high temperature membrane would result in significant energy savings.
Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell does not teach wherein the at least one microfiltration membrane includes modifiers, mixed with a polymer of the at least one microfiltration membrane, to convert the at least one microfiltration membrane form being substantially hydrophobic to being substantially hydrophilic.
However, Henis teaches the surface modification of hydrophobic support micro-filtration membranes with a surface modifying hydrophilic polymer (i.e., teach wherein the at least one microfiltration membrane includes modifiers, mixed with a polymer of the at least one microfiltration membrane, to convert the at least one microfiltration membrane form being substantially hydrophobic to being substantially hydrophilic) for the purpose of imparting the mechanically strong support membrane with desirable surface interactions, with an explicit example of modifying a polyethersulfone support membrane to reduce fouling (Col. 1, Line 45 to Col. 2, Line 46).
Henis is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to modifying support surfaces with a polymeric modifying material (Col. 1, Lines 10-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microfiltration membrane made obvious by Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell with the polymeric coating as taught by Henis because the coating would impart desirable surface interactions for the filtration process.
Regarding Claim 30, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell in view of Henis makes obvious the method of claim 29. Allen further teaches an example operation of a hydrocyclone in which the hydrocyclone concentrates particles coarser than 10 microns substantially (Paragraph 0077) and that the particle size distribution of a classified slurry can be from about 5 to 25 microns (i.e., wherein centrifuging the aqueous material feed stream includes removing particulate contaminants having a diameter of at least 10 µm; Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 35, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell in view of Henis makes obvious the method of claim 29. Cummins further teaches that the temperature of the centrate entering the solid/liquid separation step is at 50-80 °C (i.e., wherein subjecting the overflow stream to microfiltration is conducted at temperatures in the range from about 70°C to about 90°C; Page 6, Lines 16-26) and that the aqueous stream is advantageously cooled prior to the reverse osmosis step such that the water is not above the maximum operating temperature of the membrane (Page 7, Lines 19-24) and that it is desirable to keep the water temperatures in the hydrocyclone assembly and microfiltration steps as high as possible to prevent the polyvinyl alcohol in solution to the greatest extent possible (Page 12, Lines 4-21). Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell does not explicitly teach the microfiltration temperature range of about 70°C to about 90°C in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected temperatures that correspond to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell.
Regarding Claim 40, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell in view of Henis makes obvious the method of claim 29. Henis further teaches that the modifying polymer is absorbed onto the surface of the support polymer (i.e., wherein the modifiers include a coating at a surface of the at least one microfiltration membrane; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 41, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell in view of Henis makes obvious the method of claim 29. Henis further teaches that the support membrane should be porous enough that the modifying polymer can diffuse through the surface pores to treat the interior of the support membrane (i.e., wherein the modifiers include a coating at surfaces of respective pores of the at least one microfiltration membrane; Col. 2, Lines 45-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights