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 .
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-5 and 7-12
Withdrawn Claims: 13-20
Cancelled Claims: 6
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been sustained and modified to account for the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding Mitra et al (US Patent No. 20190118143 A1) hereinafter Mitra and claim 1, that Mitra teaches the use of microwave radiation to improve permeate flux, which will increase the temperature of the fluid, and will therefore utilize a different mechanism of action that the instant claim 1, despite referencing magnetic fields as an alternative (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 7, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Mitra teaches that the chemical nature of the feed may be modified such as breaking up salt-water clusters via a magnetic field which has the purpose of improving the membrane distillation separation performance (Paragraph 0018). The reduction of deposition of dissolved salts onto the membrane during the evaporation of fluid will improve the permeate flux across the membrane distillation unit over time. Mitra teaches additional mechanisms besides temperature increase for improving permeate flux across a membrane distillation unit and so does not require the fluid to increase temperature before entering the membrane distillation device.
Applicant argues, regarding Rene Nielsen (US Patent No. 20180334397 A1) hereinafter Rene Nielsen and claim 1, that Rene Nielsen discloses that lime scale deposition may be prevented by using the frequency range and rates that are identical to the instant claim 1, but does not teach directing the fluid to a membrane distillation unit and because Mitra teaches temperature changes to modify permeate flux, it would not be obvious to use the teachings of Rene Nielsen in combination with Mitra to modify the permeate flux with non-temperature means (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 7, Paragraph 3 to Page 8).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Mitra teaches modifying the chemical nature of a feed stream for a membrane distillation unit such as breaking up salt clusters via a magnetic field which in combination with the specific range of oscillation taught by Rene Nielsen for lime would modify the permeate flux of the membrane over time by preventing lime scale deposition on the membrane distillation unit. The same methods and even purposes described in instant claim 1 are made obvious by Holland (US Patent No. 20180178184 A1) hereinafter Holland in view Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 5, that claim 5 is allowable because of its dependence upon claim 1 (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 9, Paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, claim 1 is not allowable and so claim 5 is also not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 7, that Stronczek (US Patent No. 20160207801 A1) hereinafter Stronczek teaches open ended magnetic field strengths, with only a lower bound, and so the range should not be considered a range and thus does not read upon the range of instant claim 7 (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 9, Paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Stronczek may teach open-ended ranges, but these are still considered ranges and they overlap with the range of instant claim 7. Applicant must argue criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05). There are several illustrative examples that demonstrate various ranges that are not considered patentable and why.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 7, that Stronczek does not teach an appropriate rationale for the modification because paragraph 0002, referenced in the office action, is part of the background and describes the shortcomings of the prior art (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 9, Paragraph 5 to Page 10, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Stronczek at paragraph 0002 describes shortcomings of prior art that the invention taught by Stronczek will overcome, which includes increasing the duration for which the treatment of the magnetic field will persist on the treated fluid. Stronczek describes the invention being capable of producing treated water that is stable for up to 18 months (Paragraph 0024). Therefore, there is sufficient motivation to combine because the magnetic field strength as taught by Stronczek would increase stability of the magnetically treated fluid and the duration for which the magnetic treatment will last upon the fluid.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 7, that Holland teaches higher strength magnetic fields (Paragraph 0256) than Stronczek and so the modification of Holland by Stronczek would change the principle of operation of Holland (Arguments filed 05 JANUARY 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, the referenced paragraph in Holland (Paragraph 0256) is simply a single embodiment of the invention. Holland also teaches the use of 150 Gauss and 850 Gauss magnetic field strengths in several examples (Paragraph 0143-0147, 0150-0152, 0156-0159). Holland contemplates magnetic strength values that are similar to instant claim 7 and Stronczek claims an overlapping range with both instant claim 7 and Holland. It would not be change the principle of operation of Holland to use magnetic fields on the lower end of the strengths as taught by Holland because of the teachings of Stronczek.
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, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland (US Patent No. 20180178184 A1) hereinafter Holland in view of Mitra et al (US Patent No. 20190118143 A1) hereinafter Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen (US Patent No. 20180334397 A1) hereinafter Rene Nielsen.
Regarding Claim 1, Holland discloses a method for a fluid containing a polar substance to be subjected to a sufficient amount of magnetic force for improving the efficiency of separation (i.e., a method comprising; Paragraph 0006) where fluid flows through a non-magnetically conductive flow conduit (i.e., flowing a fluid through a processing zone defined by a nonmagnetic portion or an antiferromagnetic portion of a conduit; Fig. 3A, #22) within a magnetically conductive conduit (Fig. 3A, #30) in which the fluid is magnetically conditioned (i.e., exposing the fluid, while the fluid flows through the processing zone, to a magnetic field; Paragraph 0228) by magnetic flux loops (Fig. 2, #15) that are generated by energized coil (Fig. 2, #11) where the magnetic flux flows counter to the direction of fluid flow as designated by the fluid inlet (Fig. 2, #13) being the side where the magnetic flux leaves the conduit and the fluid outlet (Fig. 2, #14) being the side where the magnetic flux enters the conduit (i.e., a magnetic field oriented generally counter to a direction of the fluid flow; Paragraphs 0219-0220). Holland further discloses that the magnetic treatment is created by pulsed electrical signals to form a pulsed fluid treatment (i.e., produced by oscillating electromagnetic waves; Paragraphs 0129-0131). Holland further teaches that the apparatus for conditioning fluids can be used upstream of separators including distillation systems, desalination equipment, evaporation systems, reverse osmosis membrane systems, and membrane separation apparatus using semipermeable membrane materials among other separation systems (i.e., directing the fluid to a separation unit; Paragraph 0119). Holland further teaches that biological contaminants may destroyed by flowing through magnetically energized conduits (Paragraph 0436).
Holland does not teach directing the fluid to a membrane distillation unit having a feed side, a permeate side, and a microporous hydrophobic membrane separating the feed side from the permeate side and wherein exposing the fluid to the magnetic field increases a vapor pressure of the fluid.
However, Mitra teaches that microwave irradiation can be used to enhance membrane distillation separation systems by both thermal and non-thermal effects (i.e., directing the fluid to a membrane distillation unit; Paragraph 0011), where the membrane is hydrophobic (i.e., a microporous hydrophobic membrane; Paragraph 0013) with a feed stream (i.e., a feed side; Fig. 1, #70) and a distillate exiting the permeate side (i.e., a permeate side; separating the feed side from the permeate side; Fig. 1, #76), that magnetic field radiation can be employed in place of microwave radiation (Paragraph 0010), and that the chemical nature of the feed may be modified via a magnetic field such as breaking up salt-water clusters which has the purpose of improving the membrane distillation separation performance (i.e., modifying permeate flux across the microporous hydrophobic membrane, the modifying comprising exposing the fluid to a magnetic field; Paragraph 0018).
Mitra is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to magnetic field radiative feed modification systems paired with membrane separation processes (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Holland to increase the temperature and thus the vaper pressure of the fluid as taught by Mitra because the increased vapor pressure would improve the water flux of the downstream membrane separation process.
Holland in view of Mitra does not teach the oscillating electromagnetic waves controlled to sweep frequencies of 200 Hz and 20,000 Hz at a rate of 10 to 20 times per second.
However, Rene Nielsen teaches that the frequency is swept from a first frequency of 300 Hz to a second frequency of 9,000 Hz (i.e., the oscillating electromagnetic waves controlled to sweep frequencies of 200 Hz and 20,000 Hz; Paragraph 0013) where the current sweeps 10 to 12 times per second (i.e., at a rate of 10 to 20 times per second; Paragraph 0015) for the purpose of reducing the bacterial count of the water compared to other water treatment methods (Paragraph 0014).
Rene Nielsen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electromagnetic field generator for a water pipe (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frequency range and the sweep timing made obvious by Holland in view of Mitra to be in the ranges taught by Rene Nielsen because the ranges taught by Rene Nielsen would reduce the bacterial count of the water compared to other treatment methods.
Furthermore, the limitation “modifying permeate flux across the microporous hydrophobic membrane” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the prior art product structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established because the devices meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 2, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches that the fluid may be for oil/water separation, water/solids separation, or oil/water/solids separation (i.e., wherein the fluid includes at least one of water, one or more solvents, one or more salts, and one or more contaminants; Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 3, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches examples of treatment using synthetic seawater with a composition containing sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, potassium chloride (i.e., wherein the fluid comprises at least one of sodium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, potassium chloride, and ionic forms thereof; Paragraph 0334).
Regarding Claim 4, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches an example of stainless steel being used for the construction of a non-magnetically conductive segment (i.e., wherein the antiferromagnetic portion of the conduit comprises one or more of Mn, Cr, Fe, Ni; Paragraph 0449).
Regarding Claim 8, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches that the temperature of the fluid containing at least one polar substance increases less than 1°F (i.e., wherein exposing the fluid to electromagnetic waves increases the temperature of the fluid by no more than 5°C; Paragraph 0267).
Regarding Claim 9, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches that magnetic force on a fluid containing a polar substance can alter one or more of the physical properties of the fluid (i.e., wherein exposure of the fluid to the magnetic field alters the at least one property of the fluid; Paragraph 0006) and that the physical properties modified includes absorption, solubility, temperature, and pressure, among others (i.e., wherein the property is selected from a solvent property, a solvent-solute interaction, and a combination thereof; Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Mitra further teaches that microwave irradiation can be used to enhance membrane distillation separation systems by both thermal and non-thermal effects (Paragraph 0011), that magnetic field radiation can be employed in place of microwave radiation (Paragraph 0010), and that the thermal effects of increasing temperature increase the vapor pressure (i.e., wherein the vapor pressure of the fluid at the processing zone outlet is greater than the vapor pressure of the fluid at processing zone inlet) which has the purpose of enhancing the water vapor flux for the membrane distillation downstream (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 11, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Mitra further teaches that microwave irradiation can be used to enhance membrane distillation separation systems by both thermal and non-thermal effects (Paragraph 0011), that magnetic field radiation can be employed in place of microwave radiation (Paragraph 0010), and that the method may further include heating the feed stream in a temperature controlled bath (Fig. 1, #20; Paragraphs 0017, 0036). Mitra further teaches an example feed temperature of 50 °C (i.e., wherein, prior to flowing through the processing zone, the fluid is heated to a temperature in the range of 45 °C to 60 °C) which has the purpose of enhancing the water vapor flux by 42% for the membrane distillation downstream (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 12, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland further teaches that the magnetically conditioned fluid is directed to pass through a separation apparatus (i.e., wherein the processing zone is upstream from the separation process; Paragraph 0030) where the separator can be selected from the group of dissolved air flotation, froth flotation, and ultrafiltration apparatus (i.e., wherein the separation process is an adsorption process or an ultrafiltration membrane process; Paragraph 0119).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nehlen (US Patent No. 9302205 B1) hereinafter Nehlen.
Regarding Claim 5, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen does not teach wherein the antiferromagnetic portion of the conduit comprises an antiferromagnetic material selected from the group consisting of PtMn, NiMn, IrMn, OsMn, PdPtMn, CrPtMn, NiO, CoO, CoNiO, and PtCr.
However, Nehlen teaches antiferromagnetic materials such as nickel oxide (i.e., wherein the antiferromagnetic portion of the conduit comprises an antiferromagnetic material selected from the group consisting of NiO) for the purpose of not magnifying the strength of the magnetic layer (Col. 11, Lines 42-50).
Nehlen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to adding a media layer to a filter (Abstract) which can be coupled to a magnetic circuit to provide magnetism to the layer (Col. 11, Lines 25-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-magnetic material made obvious by Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen to be nickel oxide as taught by Nehlen because the nickel oxide would prevent the magnification of the strength of the magnetic field.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stronczek (US Patent No. 20160207801 A1) hereinafter Stronczek.
Regarding Claim 7, Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen makes obvious the method of claim 1. Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen does not teach wherein the strength of the magnetic field is in the range of about 25 mT to about 50 mT.
However, Stronczek teaches creating an alternating electromagnetic field with a strength of at least 100 Gauss (i.e., greater than or equal to 10 milliTesla) and at least 500 Gauss (i.e., greater than or equal to 50 milliTesla; Paragraph 0037) for the purpose of maintaining the water at an altered state for a longer duration (Paragraphs 0002 and 0024). Stronczek does not teach the explicit range of strength for the magnetic field of about 25 mT to about 50 mT 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 a magnetic field strength that corresponds to the claimed magnetic field strength range while experimenting with the range taught by Stronczek.
Stronczek is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a treatment device for treating water using an electromagnetic field in a conduit (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnetic field strength made obvious by Holland in view of Mitra in view of Rene Nielsen to be in the range taught by Stronczek because the magnetic field strength taught Stronczek would maintain the altered state of the water for a longer time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights