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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 17, 24, and 31. Claims 17-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 31 are pending. Claims 17-18 and 20-22 are withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections over the prior art previously relied upon and further in view of newly cited Cath et al. (US 2006/0144788). See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/25/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/25/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections over Mitani have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “Mitani does not teach or suggest an oscillating thermal energy effect nor two counter flowing fluid streams where the two counter flowing fluid streams comprises a feed and distillate stream,” and that “In other words, Mitani does not teach or suggest a confinement of thermal energy that allows for continuous recirculation/recycling of heat between modules/channels.”
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
First, with regard to the assertion that Mitani does not teach or suggest “two counter flowing fluid streams where the two counter flowing fluid streams comprises a feed and distillate stream,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 103 rejections set forth in the 7/25/2025 Final Rejection (see page 5 thereof), and in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, Mitani does teach two counter flowing fluid streams where the two counter flowing fluid streams comprises a feed and distillate stream. See 103 rejection of claim 24 below for details.
With regard to the assertion that Mitani does not teach or suggest “an oscillating thermal energy effect” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, Mitani does teach an oscillating thermal energy effect satisfying the requirement for a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module and the distillation module, wherein the first heat flux and the second heat flux resonantly oscillate. See 103 rejection of claim 24 below for details.
With regard to assertions that “Mitani does not teach or suggest a confinement of thermal energy that allows for continuous recirculation/recycling of heat between modules/channels,” Examiner first notes that the pending claims do not recite any limitations of “a confinement of thermal energy that allows for continuous recirculation/recycling of heat between modules/channels.” 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).
Nevertheless, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. As is made apparent by the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, Mitani does teach thermal oscillations which result in/allow for continuous recirculation/recycling of heat between modules/channels.
Applicant has argued that “Whereas the present claims allow for the maintenance of internal thermal energy because of resonant oscillation of internal heat fluxes, which prevent thermal energy loss from the system to the environment, Mitani's configuration and methods do not provide this effect,”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is explained in detail in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, Mitani does teach resonant oscillation of internal heat fluxes which prevent thermal energy loss from the system to the environment. Furthermore, the resonant oscillations of internal heat fluxes in Mitani are understood to substantially the same as those in Applicant’s invention, at least in embodiments where Applicant’s thermal oscillator is a NESMD system. At the very least, the resonant oscillations of internal heat fluxes in Mitani closely resemble those in the NESMD embodiments of Applicant’s invention.
As an initial matter, Examiner understands that, in the NESMD embodiments of Applciant’s invention, the flow divider MUST comprise both the heat exchange surface of the heat exchange module and the membrane of the distillation unit. This is because, in order to achieve the required conditions for resonant oscillation (e.g. as explained in Figure 8 and associated paragraph [00138]), the first heat flux must be across the membrane of the membrane distillation module. The first and second heat fluxes as claimed are explicitly required to be first and second heat fluxes across the divider. Thus, if Applicant’s NESMD embodiments fall within the scope of claim 24, as Applicant has asserted they do (see page 8 of the 9/25/2025 Remarks), then, in the context of said embodiments, the claimed flow divider must comprise both the heat exchange surface of the heat exchange module and the membrane of the distillation unit. (See 112(b) rejections below for additional discussion on this matter).
As another initial matter, Examiner understands that the flow divider can be comprised of non-contiguous elements. This is consistent with Applicant’s Figure 10E, which depicts an NESMD system wherein the heat exchange module(s) is/are not contiguous with the distillation module. This is also consistent with related NPL reference Alabastri et al. (“Resonant energy transfer enhances solar thermal desalination”; DOI: 10.1039/c9ee03256h), which includes both a diagram and a photograph depicting an NESMD unit wherein the heat exchange surface and the distillation membrane are non-contiguous (see Fig. 1A). (See 112(b) rejections below for additional discussion on this matter).
Examiner’s understanding is that, in Applicant’s invention (or at least the NESMD embodiments thereof), the resonant oscillation of internal heat fluxes are position wise oscillations, i.e. position wise oscillation in the first and second heat fluxes. In other words, in Applicant’s invention, the first and second heat fluxes oscillate (experience variations) depending on position on the flow divider. More specifically, the first heat flux is greater in the distillation module than it is in the heat exchange module, such that heat flows from the first stream to the second stream in the distillation module. Conversely, the second heat flux is greater in the heat exchange module than it is in the distillation module, such that heat flows from the second stream to the first stream in the heat exchanger module. As is explained in detail in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, operation of Mitanni’s system produces substantially identical position wise oscillations in the first and second heat fluxes. As is also explained in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, said position wise oscillations in the first and second heat fluxes of Mitani are resonant, and result in the maintenance (retention) of thermal energy within the distillation and heat exchange modules. Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that Mitani allows for the maintenance of internal thermal energy because of resonant oscillation of internal heat fluxes, which prevent thermal energy loss from the system to the environment.
Applicant has argued that “Mitani's modules are not coupled in a configuration that allows for resonant heat exchange between modules/channels through the divider. Mitani's system is therefore not necessarily configured in a way to allow for the cyclical oscillation of heat flows nor storage of the thermal energy. In contrast, the configuration in Mitani allows for heat exchanges with the environment through heat pumps 5 and 40 interposed between the heat exchanger 4 and the distillation unit 1.”
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding the assertion that “Mitani's modules are not coupled in a configuration that allows for resonant heat exchange between modules/channels through the divider,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above and detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 24 below, Mantai achieves resonant heat exchange between modules/channels through the divider in a manner consistent with the claims. Therefore, Mitani's modules are necessarily coupled in a configuration that allows for resonant heat exchange between modules/channels through the divider.
Regarding the assertion that “Mitani's system is therefore not necessarily configured in a way to allow for the cyclical oscillation of heat flows nor storage of the thermal energy,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mitani’s system is necessarily configured in a way which allows for a cyclical oscillation of heat flows and for storage of the thermal energy. See 103 rejection of claim 24 below for details.
Regarding the assertion that “In contrast, the configuration in Mitani allows for heat exchanges with the environment through heat pumps 5 and 40 interposed between the heat exchanger 4 and the distillation unit 1,” Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. There is nothing in the claims that excludes the presence of a heat pump in the positions of heat pumps 40 and 5. Examiner also notes that there is nothing in the claims which necessitates that the divider be made up of contiguous elements (See 112(b) rejections of claim 24 below for further discussion on this matter). 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).
Applicant has argued that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Mitani that would direct a person of ordinary skill in the art to a system or methods that involve systems to resonantly oscillate heat transfer fluxes between the two counter-flowing fluid streams.” This argument is moot, as Mitani teaches a method that involves the resonant oscillation of heat fluxes between two counter-flowing fluid streams.
Applicant has argued that “Since Mitani does not teach or suggest a method that includes resonant oscillation of heat fluxes between the two counterflowing fluid streams, Mitani also does not teach or suggest where a system is configured to maximize the storage of thermal energy.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above and detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below, Mitani does teach a method that includes resonant oscillation of heat fluxes between the two counterflowing fluid streams. The method of Mitani further results in maximization of thermal energy storage within the distillation module and the heat exchange module (See 103 rejection of claim 24 below for details).
Applicant has argued that Rodgers does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Mitani. This argument is moot, as Mitani is not deficient as alleged.
Applciant’s remarks contain the following argument:
Applicant believes that the differences between Mitani and the present claims are further supported in view of the visualizations provided in FIGs. 16A-G of the specification. As noted in para. [0161] of the specification, at resonance, when the feed and distillate flows are matched, the probe circulates from the feed to the distillate multiple times before exiting the channels. This dynamic describes the ability of the present systems and methods to reuse heat that is accumulated. However, when the system is far from resonance, the probes are simply flown to the channel outlets. Thus, the present claims provide a circular heat flux as shown in FIG. 8(4i). However, to achieve this effect, the present claims require a flow control device configured to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid stream to maintain the net heat transfer between the two counter-flowing fluid streams across the divider and to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module and the distillation module. With the adjustment of the flow rate, a net heat transfer between the first and second heat fluxes results in heat transfer that resonantly oscillates between the modules and allows for storage of the heat within the system. This is further described in para. [0149] of the specification which notes that "To maintain resonance and optimum distillate flux values, the flow rates may be tuned dynamically, throughout a typical day, as the solar radiation varies."
Applicant respectfully asserts that neither Rodgers nor Milder remedies these defects.
(emphasis added).
This argument is unpersuasive, as it fails to clearly point out what “these defects” are.
It is clear that “these defects” refers to an alleged deficiency of Mitani. Said alleged deficiency is presumably either: i) one of the deficiencies alleged by Applicant on page 9 of the 9/25/2025 remarks, or ii) some hypothetical alleged deficiency related to Applciant’s discussion bridging pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks concerning the claimed “flow control device” bridging pages 10 and 11.
If “these defects” refers to deficiencies alleged by Applicant on page 9 of the remarks, the allegations on page 9 have been fully addressed above. The disclosure of Mitani is not deficient in the manner(s) alleged on page 9 of the Remarks. In this case, the argument that “neither Rodgers nor Milder remedies these defects” is moot.
If “these defects” refers to some hypothetical alleged deficiency related to Applicant’s discussion bridging pages 10 and 11 concerning the claimed “flow control device”, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because it fails to clearly point out what “these defects” in Mitani are.
Regardless, assuming that Applicant is alleging that Mitani fails to teach or suggest the claimed flow control device, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mitani teaches the claimed “flow control device” in the manner described in the 103 rejection of claim 24 set forth below.
Applicant has argued that “Milder, does not teach or suggest measuring heat fluxes of two fluid streams to resonantly oscillate nor the accumulation of stored thermal energy from the resonant thermal oscillation.” Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
This argument attacks Milder individually, whereas the claims are rejected over a combination of Mitani, Milder, Cath, and Rodgers, wherein Mitani is relied upon as the primary reference and Milder is merely relied upon as a secondary reference to address Mitani’s silence to measuring an effect of the first heat flux across the divider and measuring an effect of the second heat flux across the divider. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 24 below, primary reference Mitani teaches a thermal oscillator system wherein heat fluxes between two heat fluxes resonantly oscillate, thereby maximizing stored thermal energy. In the 103 rejection of claim 24 below, Milder is relied upon as a secondary in conjunction with Cath to support Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitami by measuring the effects of the first and second heat fluxes by measuring the temperatures of the first and second fluid streams upstream and downstream of the heat exchange and distillation modules, and thereby the changes in temperature experienced by the first and second fluid streams as they pass through the heat exchange module and the distillation modules, in order to provide a system operator with information which indicates whether or not the heat exchange module and the distillation module are functioning properly. Milder is ultimately relied upon to establish that that it is known in the art to measure temperatures of two fluid flows both upstream and downstream of a heat exchanger. Milder is not relied upon to teach thermal oscillations or the accumulation of stored thermal energy therefrom. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion that secondary reference Milder fails to teach or suggest measuring resonantly oscillating heat fluxes or “the accumulation of stored thermal energy from the resonant thermal oscillation” is not sufficient to defeat the rejections over Mitani in view of Milder, Cath, and Rodgers.
As acknowledged above, Milder is relied upon to address Mitani’s silence to measuring an effect of the first heat flux across the divider and measuring an effect of the second heat flux across the divider. However, Applicant attacks Examiner’s reliance upon Milder by asserting that Milder fails to “teach or suggest measuring heat fluxes of two fluid streams to resonantly oscillate”. Importantly, the claims do not require measurement of a heat flux. Instead, they merely require “measuring an effect of” the first and second heat fluxes. 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).
Milder teaches measuring the temperatures of fluids both upstream and downstream of a heat exchanger. In doing so, Milder indirectly measures the change in temperature experienced by said fluid as a result of passing through said heat exchanger and thus, the effect of one or more heat fluxes in the heat exchanger. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that Milder teaches or at least suggests measuring the effect of a heat flux.
Applicant has argued that “Milder also does not teach, suggest, or recognize that the heat fluxes may be adjusted with a flow controller to maintain resonant thermal oscillation.”
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
This argument also attacks Milder individually, whereas the claims are rejected over a combination of Mitani, Milder, Cath, and Rodgers, wherein Mitani is relied upon as the primary reference and Milder is merely relied upon as a secondary reference to address Mitani’s silence to measuring an effect of the first heat flux across the divider and measuring an effect of the second heat flux across the divider. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The actual limitations of claim 24 concerning the flow control device are as follows: “using a flow control device to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid steam to maintain the net heat transfer between the two counter-flowing fluid streams across the divider and to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module and the distillation module”.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 24 below, Mitani comprises using a flow control device (feed pump) 21 to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid steam to maintain the net heat transfer between the first and second fluid streams across the divider (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 40-Column 3 Line 61). The step of using the flow control device (feed pump) 21 to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid stream, in addition to maintaining the net heat transfer between the first and second fluid streams across the divider, also provides a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module 4 and the distillation module 1, wherein the first and second heat fluxes both resonantly oscillate (Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 15-48, especially lines 16-20, 24-30, and 39-48). Therefore, Mitani fully satisfies the claim limitations concerning the use of the claimed flow control device.
Because Mitani is not deficient with respect to the claim limitations concerning the use of a flow controller, Milder has not been relied upon to address said limitations, nor is any reliance on Milder required. Applicant’s assertion that secondary reference Milder fails to teach or suggest “that the heat fluxes may be adjusted with a flow controller to maintain resonant thermal oscillation”.
Applicant has made the following further argument(s) concerning the 103 rejections over Mitani:
While the Examiner notes that that it would be desirable to measure the effects of the first and second heat fluxes, i.e. by measuring the changes in temperature experienced by the first and second fluid streams as they pass through the heat exchange module, as doing so would allow a system operator to ensure that the heat exchanger is functioning properly, Applicant respectfully disagrees as motivation rooted in whether the heat exchanger functions properly would have been irrelevant for a person of ordinary skill seeking to perform the claimed method. The present claims specifically require measuring heat fluxes to maintain a net heat transfer to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the two modules which is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Thus, rather than finding a teaching or suggestion that would point the skilled person to the present claims that feature resonant thermal oscillation between modules by adjusting a flow rate to maintain a net heat transfer, the teachings of Milder would have suggested a configuration that allows for the measurement of heat escaping through the channel outlets of Mitani's heat exchanger, but nothing about the heat fluxes being connected to a resonant thermal oscillation or a flow control device for controlling the net heat transfer. As such, Applicant believes that the combination of Mitani, Rodgers and Milder does not read on nor suggest the present claims, as amended.
This argument is predicated on the notion that the “claims specifically require measuring heat fluxes to maintain a net heat transfer to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the two modules”. However, the claims do not require measuring heat fluxes, let alone “measuring heat fluxes to maintain a net heat transfer to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the two modules”.
Instead, the claims merely require “measuring an effect of a first heat flux across the divider from the first fluid stream to the second fluid stream” and “measuring an effect of a first heat flux across the divider from the first fluid stream to the second fluid stream”.
Furthermore, the claims require no connection between the steps of measuring the effects of the first and second heat fluxes and the step of “using a flow control device… to maintain the net heat transfer… and to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module and the distillation module”. In other words, there is nothing in the claims which necessitates that the steps of measuring the effects of the first and second heat fluxes, or the measurements obtained from said steps, be taken into account during the step of using the flow control device to “using a flow control device… to maintain the net heat transfer… and to provide a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module and the distillation module”.
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).
Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument(s) reproduced above to be unpersuasive, and does not concede to any of the assertions made therewith.
Applicant has argued that the dependent claims are allowable over Mitani, Rodgers, and Milder for the same alleged reasons as independent claim 24. As discussed above, the combination of Mitani, Milder, and Rodgers is not deficient in the alleged manner(s). Therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant has argued that Laleg and Liao do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Mitani, Rodgers, and Milder. As discussed above, the combination of Mitani, Milder, and Rodgers is not deficient in the alleged manner(s). Therefore, this argument is moot.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-28 and 31 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.
Claim 24 recites “providing a thermal oscillator system comprising a heat exchange module and a distillation module fluidly connected to the heat exchange module, the heat exchange module comprising: a divider positioned between and separating two counter-flowing fluid streams into a first channel and a second channel, respectively” in lines 2-6 (emphasis added).
This limitation describes a divider which is a component of the heat exchange module or is otherwise disposed within the heat exchange module.
However, a review of Applicant’s Specification and the Remarks filed 9/25/2025 suggests that the divider may further include or otherwise constitute an element of the distillation module. Indeed, Applicant’s Remarks and Specification point to at least some embodiments of the claimed invention requiring that the divider include or otherwise constitute an element of the distillation module.
In particular, claim 24 requires the measuring of a first heat flux and a second heat flux, wherein both of said heat fluxes are required to be across the divider (see lines 14-16 of claim 24). Claim 24 also requires a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchanger module and the distillation module. The 9/25/2025 Remarks assert that NESMD systems like those disclosed by Applicant (e.g. in Figure 2A) are examples of systems which operate to provide resonant thermal oscillations in accordance with the method of claim 24. Figure 8A(ii) and associated paragraph [00138] clarifies the conditions required for resonant thermal oscillations to be achieved in a NESMD system. A review of Figure 8A(ii) and paragraph [00138] reveals that, to achieve resonant thermal oscillations in a NESMD system, a circular heat flow pattern like that in Figure 8A(ii) is required, and to achieve such a circular heat flow pattern, one of the claimed heat fluxes must occur across the membrane in the distillation module of the NESMD system. Therefore, if operating a NESMD system to achieve resonant thermal oscillations falls within the scope of claim 24 as argued by Applicant, then the divider of claim 24 must be permitted to include elements outside of the heat exchange module and belonging to the distillation module.
The claim is unclear because it is at best unclear that the divider as claimed is permitted to include elements outside of the heat exchange module, let alone components of the distillation module. At worst, claim 24 implicitly precludes the divider from comprising components of the distillation module, as well as elements which lie outside the heat exchange module more generally.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 24 such that the language thereof is clearly permits the divider to comprise elements outside of the heat exchange module and belonging to the distillation module.
With regard to claim 24: It is unclear if the claimed “divider” can be satisfied by plural non-contiguous elements.
As discussed in the rejection above, it is understood that, in embodiments wherein the thermal oscillator system is an NESMD system, the divider must comprise the membrane of said NESMD system to achieve resonant thermal oscillations in the claimed manner. It is further understood that the divider must comprise a non-permeable heat exchange surface, distinct from the membrane and positioned within the heat exchange module (see Figure 8A(ii) and associated paragraph [00138] of Applciant’s specification). The fact that the claimed divider can be comprised of plural distinct elements raises the question, can the claimed divider be made up of distinct elements which are not contiguously disposed with one another?
The need for this question is further reinforced by Applicant’s Figure 10E which shows an NESMD unit comprised of plural heat exchange walls which are not continuously disposed with one another, or with the membrane of the distillation module. The inclusion of Figure 10E at least suggests that the claimed divider can be comprised of plural non-contiguous elements. This suggestion is further reinforced by related NPL reference Alabastri et al. (“Resonant energy transfer enhances solar thermal desalination”; DOI: 10.1039/c9ee03256h), which includes both a diagram and a photograph depicting an NESMD unit wherein the heat exchange surface and the distillation membrane are non-contiguous (see Fig. 1A).
In examining the present application, Examiner had previously found it unreasonable to treat the claimed “divider” as being satisfied by plural non-contiguous elements. Examiner’s reasoning was that plural non-contiguous elements dividing a first stream from a second stream necessarily constituted multiple dividers, as opposed to “a divider positioned between and separating two counter-flowing fluid stream”. However, now that it is understood that the claimed divider may comprise a distillation membrane in addition to a heat exchange wall, the contents of present Figure 10E and Figure 1A from the Alabastri reference suggest that Examiner’s earlier interpretation was too narrow. Instead, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the claimed divider may be satisfied by plural non-contiguous elements.
For the purposes of examination, the claimed divider will be treated as being satisfied by plural non-contiguous elements.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant provide a written statement clarifying whether or not the claimed “divider” may be satisfied by plural non-contiguous elements. Examiner notes that any such clarifying statement provided by Applicant will be considered to limit the claims.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the thermal oscillator system is configured to maximize stored thermal energy” in lines 25-26.
The threshold for maximizing thermal energy is unclear. In other words, it is unclear what is required of a system for it to be one which is “configured to maximize stored thermal energy”.
To elaborate, it is unclear how literally the term “maximize” should be taken. While one could interpret the term “maximize” as meaning merely to increase, the ordinary meaning of said term is to make as large or great as possible.
If the term “maximize” is to be given its ordinary meaning, then it is unclear exactly how the system must be configured to “maximize stored thermal energy” as claimed. Broadly speaking, there is no theoretical limit on how much thermal energy a system can store, as it is largely dependent on the system’s overall mass. In the context of the claimed system, one could theoretically continue to increase stored thermal energy merely by increasing the mass of distillation module, the heat exchange module, the divider etc. As such, the maximum thermal energy storage the system can attain is really only limited by one’s what is achievable with modern technology and by one’s determination to make the system more massive.
Perhaps the requirement to “maximize stored thermal energy” could be treated as a requirement that the system reach a maximum theoretical specific energy storage (i.e. energy storage per unit mass). However, the variables which affect how much energy the system can store would remain so numerous that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it difficult, if not impossible, to reasonably determine at what point the system is configured so as to maximize stored thermal energy.
None of the aforementioned issues are a problem if the term “maximize” is treated as meaning merely --increase--. However, such treatment is not entirely consistent with the ordinary meaning of “maximize”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should either: i) provide a written statement agreeing that “maximize” should be treated broadly as meaning --increase--, or ii) amend the claim by removing the word maximize and replacing it with a term having greater clarity.
Claims 25-28 and 31 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 24.
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.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 5,300,197), hereafter referred to as Mitani, in view of Milder et al. (US 2013/0255908), hereafter referred to as Milder, Cath et al. (US 2006/0144788), hereafter referred to as Cath, and Rodgers (US 3,406,096).
With regard to claims 24 and 28: Mitani teaches a method comprising:
Providing a thermal oscillator system comprising a heat exchanger module 4 and a distillation module (distillation unit) 1 fluidly connected to the heat exchange module (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 40-Column 3 Line 61). Note: Mitani is a thermal oscillator system in that it experiences thermal oscillations in a manner which is explained in detail later in this rejection.
And a divider positioned between and separating two counter-flowing fluid streams into a first channel (feed water circulating passage and evaporation part) 2 and 12 and a second channel (distillate circulating passage and condensation part) 3 and 13; wherein the two fluid streams comprise a first fluid stream (feed water stream) flowing in the first channel 2 and 12 and a second fluid stream (distillate stream) flowing in the second channel 3 and 13; and wherein the divider is comprised of 1) a heat exchange surface of heat exchange module 4, AND 2) the hydrophobic porous membrane 11 of the distillation module 1 (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 40-Column 3 Line 61).
Although Mitani does not expressly teach the presence of a heat exchange surface in the heat exchange module 4, it is nevertheless understood that the heat exchanger module 4 necessarily comprises a heat exchange surface positioned between and separating the first and second fluid streams into the first and second channels 2 and 3. This is because, in order to exchange heat between the first fluid stream (feed water stream) and the second fluid stream (the distillate) without allowing said streams to mix, thus contaminating the distillate, some heat exchange surface must be provided within the heat exchanger module 4 so as to physically divide the first and second fluid streams.
In the unlikely alternative, i.e. in the unlikely event that a heat exchange surface of the heat exchange module 4 is not implicit in Mitani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mitani by adding a heat exchange surface to the heat exchange module 4, wherein the heat exchange surface is positioned between and separates the first and second fluid streams into the first and second channels 2 and 3, and wherein the heat exchange surface is configured to exchange heat between the first channel 2 and the second channel and 3, in order to obtain a heat exchanger module which allows for exchange of heat between the first fluid stream (the feed) and the second fluid stream (the distillate) without allowing said streams to mix.
In Mitani the first fluid stream is a feed stream (the feed water stream) entering the distillation module 1 and the second fluid stream is a distillate (the distillate stream) exiting the distillation module 1 (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 40-Column 3 Line 61).
In Mitani, there is necessarily a first heat flux of some magnitude across the divider from the first fluid stream (the feed water stream) to the second fluid stream (the distillate stream).
In Mitani, there is necessarily a first heat flux of some magnitude across the divider from the second fluid stream (the distillate stream) to the first fluid stream (the feed water stream).
In Mitani, there is necessarily a net heat transfer between the first and second fluid streams across the divider calculated by subtracting the first heat flux from the second heat flux, i.e. there necessarily exists a net heat transfer which is the difference between the first heat flux and the second heat flux.
The method of Mitani further comprises using a flow control device (feed pump) 21 to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid steam to maintain the net heat transfer between the first and second fluid streams across the divider (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 40-Column 3 Line 61).
In Mitani, the step of using the flow control device (feed pump) 21 to adjust a flow rate of the first fluid stream, in addition to maintaining the net heat transfer between the first and second fluid streams across the divider, also provides a resonant thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module 4 and the distillation module 1, wherein the first and second heat fluxes both resonantly oscillate (Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 15-48, especially lines 16-20, 24-30, and 39-48). To elaborate, in the method of Mitani, there is a thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module 4 and the distillation module 1 in that:
1) heat is transferred from the second stream (the distillate stream) to the first stream (the feed stream) in the heat exchange module 4 (Column 3 Lines 15-48, especially lines 17-20);
2) heat is transferred from the first stream (the feed stream) to the second stream (the distillate stream) in the distillation module 1 (Column 3 Lines 15-48, especially lines 23-30 and 39-48).
Said thermal oscillation manifests as a position wise oscillation in the first and second heat fluxes. In other words the first and second heat fluxes oscillate (experience variations) depending on position on the flow divider (the flow divider comprised of the heat exchange surface of the heat exchange module 4 and the hydrophobic porous membrane 11 of the distillation module 1). More specifically, the first heat flux is greater in the distillation module 1 than it is in the heat exchange module 4. Conversely, the second heat flux is greater in the heat exchange module 4 than it is in the distillation module 1.
Said thermal oscillations, manifested as oscillations in the heat fluxes, are resonant oscillations in that they result in a cyclical flow of heat from the first stream to the second stream in the distillation module 1, from the second stream back to the first stream in the heat exchange module 4, back again to the second stream from the first stream in the distillation module 1, and so on. Because said thermal oscillations result in such a cyclical flow of heat they are definitionally resonant in that they reinforce or prolong heat transfer from the first stream to the second stream in the distillation module 1 and from the second stream to the first stream in the heat exchange module 4 by continually recycling heat from one stream to the other. Furthermore, said thermal oscillations are resonant in substantially the same way Applicant argues their thermal oscillations to be resonant.
Because the resonant thermal oscillations result in heat being continually recycled from one stream to the other within the distillation module 1 and heat exchange module 4, the thermal oscillator system of Mitani is configured to maximize stored thermal energy, i.e. by increasing the thermal energy which is retained (stored) within the distillation module 1 and heat exchange module 4.
The resonant thermal oscillation described above are necessarily provided to some extent by adjusting the flow rate of the first fluid stream using the flow control device 21. This is because, for example, if the feed water were to remain stagnant in the thermal oscillator, the feed water in the evaporation part 12 of the distillation module 1 would eventually become too cold to transfer heat to the distillate in the condensation part 13 by convection, as well as to cold and/or concentrated to evaporate and thus transfer heat to the distillate by passage of steam through the membrane 11. However, by adjusting the flow rate of the first fluid stream using the flow control device 21, i.e. by activating the flow control device to cause the first fluid stream to flow through the thermal oscillator at some flow rate, it is ensured that fresh, heated feed water is received by the distillation module 1, thereby enabling continued heat transfer from the first fluid stream to the second fluid stream in the distillation module, and thus ensuring a thermal oscillation between the heat exchange module 4 and the distillation module 1.
Mitani is silent to measuring an effect of the first heat flux across the divider and measuring an effect of the second heat flux across the divider.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the effect of the first heat flux could be measured merely by measuring changes in temperature experienced by the first fluid stream as it passes through the heat exchange module 4 and distillation module 1, wherein said changes in temperature could be measured by measuring the temperatures of the first fluid stream upstream and downstream of the heat exchange module 4 and upstream and downstream of the distillation module 1.
Likewise, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the effect of the second heat flux could be measured merely by measuring changes in temperature experienced by the second fluid stream as it passes through the heat exchange module 4 and distillation module 1, wherein said changes in temperature could be measured by measuring the temperature of the second fluid stream upstream and downstream of the heat exchange module 4 and upstream and downstream of the distillation module 1.
It is known in the art to provide temperature sensors for measuring temperatures of both a first fluid and a second fluid both upstream and downstream of a heat exchanger. For example, Milder teaches a system having a heat exchanger 36 and a plurality of temperature sensors T1-T9, wherein temperature sensors T1 and T3 are disposed for measuring the temperature of a first fluid (glycol) both upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger 36, and wherein temperature sensors T8 and T9 are disposed for measuring the temperature of a second fluid (water) both upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger 36 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0024] and [0026]-[0030]). By measuring the temperatures of fluids both upstream and downstream of a heat exchanger, Milder indirectly measures the change in temperature experienced by said fluid as a result of passing through said heat exchanger and thus, the effect of one or more heat fluxes in the heat exchanger.
Milder further teaches that the temperature sensors may be used to determine the overall energy consumption and transfer rates of the system (paragraph [0029]).
It is also known in the art to provide temperature sensors for measuring temperature of both a first fluid and a second fluid both upstream and downstream of a membrane distillation module. For example, Cath teaches a system having a membrane distillation module (flow cell) 128, a membrane 136 disposed therein, and a plurality of temperature sensors 140, 142, 174, and 176, wherein the temperature sensors 140 and 142 are disposed for measuring the temperature of a first fluid (feed) both upstream and downstream of the distillation module 128, and wherein the temperature sensors 174 and 176 are disposed for measuring the temperature of a second fluid (permeate) both upstream and downstream of the distillation module 128 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0002], [0032], [0048]-[0051], [0056]-[0057], and [0060]). By measuring the temperatures of fluids both upstream and downstream of a membrane distillation module, Cath indirectly measures the change in temperature experienced by said fluid as a result of passing through said membrane distillation module and thus, the effect of one or more heat fluxes in the heat exchanger.
Cath teaches, “Because temperature and pressure can affect the flux of permeate passing from the feed side 130 to the permeate side 132 of the flow cell 128, thermocouples 140, 142 and pressure gauges 144, 146 may be included on the output and input sides, respectively, of the feed cycle 150,” (paragraph [0056]). It is implicit in this teaching that the temperature sensors are provided to monitor the membrane distillation module to ensure that it functioning properly.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be desirable to measure the effects of the first and second heat fluxes, i.e. by measuring the changes in temperature experienced by the first and second fluid streams as they pass through the heat exchange module and the distillation module, as doing so would allow a system operator to ensure that the heat exchanger is functioning properly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Mitani in view of Milder and Cath by measuring the effects of the first and second heat fluxes by measuring the temperatures of the first and second fluid streams upstream and downstream of the heat exchange and distillation modules, and thereby the changes in temperature experienced by the first and second fluid streams as they pass through the heat exchange module and the distillation modules, in order to provide a system operator with information which indicates whether or not the heat exchange module and the distillation module are functioning properly.
In Mitani, the divider, being comprised of the heat exchange surface of heat exchange module 4, AND the hydrophobic porous membrane 11 of the distillation module 1 comprises a thermally conductive sheet in the form of the membrane 11 to exchange heat between the first and second channel. The membrane 11 represents a thermally conductive sheet in that it is a sheet which necessarily conducts heat to some extent (Note: Even thermal insulation is thermally conductive to some extent). Furthermore, said membrane 11 functions to exchange heat between the first channel and the second channel in that it facilitates transfer of heat from the first fluid to the second fluid (Column 3 Lines 15-48, especially lines 17-20).
Regardless, even if it were argued that the membrane 11 is in some manner not “a thermally conductive sheet to exchange heat between the first channel and the second channel”, it would nevertheless be obvious to modify the divider of Mitani to comprise “a thermally conductive sheet to exchange heat between the first channel and the second channel”. Specifically, the heat exchange surface of the divider (i.e. the heat exchange surface of the heat exchange module) is necessarily comprised of a thermally conductive material for exchanging heat between the first and second channels 2 and 3, i.e. between the first and second fluid streams. This is because, in order to exchange heat between the fi