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 August 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of 10 that Liu’s (CN213443143) double-layer silicon bag does not constitute a “tank having a flexible membrane dividing an internal volume of the tank into a first portion and a second portion.” Applicant characterizes the inner layer 12 and outer layer 13 as separate housings rather than two portions of one tank. This argument is not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, the term “tank” is not limited to rigid containers. A flexible bag or bladder that stores fluid qualifies as a tank (see also Applicant’s own specification, which does not restrict “tank” to rigid structures). Liu explicitly discloses:
A double-layer silica gel bag 21 that forms a single flexible reservoir,
The bag includes a permeate storage inner layer 12 and a concentrate storage outer layer 13,
The two layers are formed together as a unified structure surrounding the membrane module.
(See Liu, Fig. 7; pr. [0024])
The double layer bag is a flexible vessel whose internal space is subdivided into two volumes by flexible silicone walls. These are the claimed “first portion” and “second portion”. The silicon partition between layers constitutes the claimed “flexible membrane dividing the internal volume.”
This reading is fully consistent with Kaufman (US10704696), which teaches a split-volume tank with a flexible diaphragm forming two volumes. Kaufman confirms that split-volume flexible tanks were well-known in the art. Thus, the Office’s mapping of Liu’s double-layer bag to the claimed “tank having a flexible membrane dividing an internal volume” is reasonable and consistent with BRI. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding Liu not disclosing a “tank” is not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts on page 8 of 10 that incorporating Kaufman’s 4-way switching valve would “unavoidably” cause the concentrate volume to be connected to a user’s drinking line, allegedly rendering the system inoperable or contrary to Liu’s intended use. This argument is also not persuasive.
The combination does not require the reassignment of permeate and concentrate lines. Kaufman discloses a fluid control architecture using a split volume tank and four-way valve arranged to selectively connect each tank volume to two vessels. Kaufman foes not require particular fluids to occupy particular volumes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would implement the valve such that:
Liu’s inner layer 12 (permeate) remains connected to the drinking/permeate outlet;
Liu’s outer layer 13 (concentrate) remains connected to the waste line;
The four-way valve simply provides selective routing of those volumes to upstream or downstream vessels while maintaining pressure balance.
Nothing in the combination compels sending concentrate to the drinking line. Applicant’s scenario is based on an artificially constrained configuration not required by the art or by the Office’s rejection. Furthermore, obviousness does not require using the exact piping layout shown in any figure of the references. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily adapt line routing while applying Kaufman’s well-known approach to pressure-balanced fluid transfer. The system remains operable and continues to perform Liu’s disclosed functions. Therefore, Applicant’s “inoperability argument fails and is not persuasive.
Applicant contends on pages 8-9 of 10 that the Office used the application as a “road map, “ asserting hindsight and insufficient explanation of how the switching valve is implemented. This argument is not persuasive.
Both Liu and Kaufman arise in the same field: fluid management for astronauts or spacecraft environments. Liu: urine processing and water recovery in a space-suit or astronaut garment. Kaufman: pumping/transport of waste fluid (e.g., urine) between a pressurized space suit and a vessel at lower pressure, using a split-volume tank and valve to avoid pressure excursions.
Thus, the references address the same problem space: controlled movement of waste and/or reclaimed fluid between vessels of differing pressures in a space-environment life-support system.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kaufman’s 4-way valve + split-volume tank architecture provides an established, predictable solution for:
Pressure-balanced fluid routing,
Selective connection of multiple volumes,
Controlling waste/permeate movement within a closed system.
Applying this known control architecture to Liu’s dual-volume flexible tank would have been an obvious design choice, improving controllability and robustness of fluid routing. The motivation is explicitly articulated and grounded in the references themselves, not in the applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, there is no hindsight reconstruction.
Applicant argues on page 9 or 10 that Li (CN110980886) “fails to cure the deficiencies” of Liu + Kaufman. However, as explained above, Applicant has not identified any actual deficiency in the base combination. Li clearly discloses an RO fluid processing system including a raw-water tank, pure-water tank, pump, and associated controls for managing sub-volumes and fluid recovery (Li abstract). These teachings reasonably supply the features recited in claim 9. Applicant provides no separate argument addressing Li’s mapping to the limitations of claim 9. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed August 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections, therefore, have been maintained. Please see below for further explanations of the rejections.
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 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN-213443143-U An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), in view of Kaufman (US-10704696-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a waste fluid water recovery system (Liu p.3 par. 4 “urine collection and reuse”), comprising: a waste fluid inlet line (Liu par. [n0018] “urine collection component”) configured to connect to a waste fluid source (Liu par. [n0017] “astronaut’s urethra”), the waste fluid inlet line comprising one or more treatment components configured to treat the waste fluid (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter” and “reverse osmosis rolled membrane assembly”); a treated waste fluid outlet line configured to connect to one or more outlets (Liu par. [n0063] “drinking silicon tube”); a tank (Liu par. [n0024] “double layered silica gel bag”) having a flexible membrane (Liu par. [n0023 “reverse osmosis rolled membrane” rolled membranes are flexible) dividing an internal volume of the tank into a first portion (Liu par. [n0024] “inner layer”) and a second portion (Liu par. [n0024] “outer layer”); a first line fluidly connected to the first portion of the tank (Liu par. [n0023] “permeate PE material conduit”); a second line fluidly connected to the second portion of the tank (Liu par. [n0023] “concentrate PE material conduit”); and the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the first line at the first portion causing the flexible membrane to flex and to reduce the volume of the second portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the second line and to the one or more outlets. (Liu [n0024] “reverse osmosis rolled membrane assembly” is flexible and as it fills and water flows into inner layer “double layered silica gel bag” is made of a silica gel material which is capable of expansion and obviously as the inner layer is filled with treated water it will reduce the volume available to the outer layer).
Liu does not disclose a switching valve connected between the first line, the second line, the waste fluid inlet line, and the treated waste fluid outlet line, wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the waste fluid inlet line and the second line with the treated waste fluid outlet line in a first state, wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the treated waste fluid outlet line and the second line with the waste fluid inlet line in a second state, wherein, in the first state, the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the first line at the first portion causing the flexible membrane to flex and to reduce the volume of the second portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the second line and to the one or more outlets, and wherein, in the second state, the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the second line at the second portion causing the flexible membrane to flex and to reduce the volume of the first portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the first line and to the one or more outlets.
Kaufman discloses a switching valve (Kaufman abstract “four way valve”) connected between the first line (Kaufman abstract “first port”), the second line (Kaufman abstract “second port”), the waste fluid inlet line (Kaufman #240 “first conduit”), and the treated waste fluid outlet line (Kaufman #250 “second conduit”), wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the waste fluid inlet line and the second line with the treated waste fluid outlet line in a first state, (Kaufman abstract “first orientation”), wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the treated waste fluid outlet line and the second line with the waste fluid inlet line in a second state, (Kaufman abstract in the “second orientation”), wherein, in the first state (Kaufman abstract “first orientation”), the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the first line at the first portion causing the flexible membrane (Kaufman col. 3 line 28 “flexible diaphragm”) to flex and to reduce the volume of the second portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the second line and to the one or more outlets, and wherein, in the second state, the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the second line at the second portion causing the flexible membrane (Kaufman col. 3 line 28 “flexible diaphragm”) to flex and to reduce the volume of the first portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the first line and to the one or more outlets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the switching valve connected between the first line, the second line, the waste fluid inlet line, and the treated waste fluid outlet line, wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the waste fluid inlet line and the second line with the treated waste fluid outlet line in a first state, wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the treated waste fluid outlet line and the second line with the waste fluid inlet line in a second state, or wherein in the second state, the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the second line at the second portion causing the flexible membrane to flex and to reduce the volume of the first portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the first line and to the one or more outlets of Kaufman with the waste fluid water recovery system of Liu. Both inventions are relevant within the field of space suits (Liu par. [n0002] and Kaufman col. 1 line 38) and as Liu is related to fluid transportation in an environment with pressure differential there would have been motivation to do so as disclosed by Kaufman, “A benefit of the disclosed embodiments is a reduced risk of damage to and within the spacesuit.”
To summarize: Liu discloses every claim limitation of claim 1 absent the switching valve and its claimed first and second states. Kaufman supplies the four-way switching valve and the claimed first and second states. Both Liu and Kaufman concern astronaut/space-suit fluid management systems operating under pressure differential constraints: Liu: urine/RO-based water recovery in a suit environment and Kaufman: pressure-safe fluid transfer between a pressurized suit and another vessel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Kaufman’s switching valve and routing architecture into Liu’s dual-volume flexible tank because it is a known, predictable approach for safely managing fluid exchange between pressurized subsystems, it provides improved control over routing of permeate and concentrate and it reduces risk of over-pressurization or unintended backflows. Applicant’s argument that the combination would “force concentrate into the drinking outlet” is not persuasive because a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply map the inner layer (permeate) to the drinking circuit while sending the outer layer (concentrate) to the waste circuit and use Kaufman’s valve only for selective routing, not for reassigning functions. No aspect of the references requires routing concentrate to the drinking outlet.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more treatment components include a waste fluid treatment bed (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter”).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the waste fluid treatment bed is a carbon filter configured to filter waste fluid (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter”).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more treatment components include a waste fluid treatment membrane (Liu par. [n0023] “reverse osmosis rolled membrane assembly”) configured to be selectively permeable (Liu par. [n0038]) to separate water from waste fluid.
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more outlets include a contingency consumption outlet such that the treated waste fluid flows from the tank directly to a location to be consumed (Liu par. [n0063] “drinking silicon tube”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more outlets include at least one of a space vacuum outlet (Kaufman claim 1 “second passage”), or a post processing outlet, or a collection tank outlet (Liu par. [n0063] “permeate PE material conduit 14 for urine permeate collection”).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the waste fluid inlet line includes one or more input quick disconnects configured to connect to the waste fluid source (Kaufman col. 5 lines 2-3 “quick-connectors”).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the treated waste fluid outlet line includes one or more outlet quick disconnects configured to connect to the one or more outlets (Kaufman col. 5 lines 2-3 “quick-connectors”).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a flow meter (Kaufman claim 5) on the waste fluid inlet line (Kaufman claim 5 “first conduit”) to determine flow on the waste fluid inlet line.
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a dead man switch (Kaufman col. 5 line 35) on the waste fluid inlet line upstream of the switching valve.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a pressurized gas source (Liu claim 2 “spacesuit”) configured to connect to the waste fluid inlet line to pressurize waste fluid from the waste fluid source.
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses a space suit (Liu claim 2), comprising: waste fluid water recovery system (Liu p.3 par. 4 “urine collection and reuse”), comprising: a waste fluid inlet line (Liu par. [n0018] “urine collection component”) configured to connect to a waste fluid source (Liu par. [n0017] “astronaut’s urethra”), the waste fluid inlet line comprising one or more treatment components configured to treat the waste fluid (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter” and “reverse osmosis rolled membrane assembly”); a treated waste fluid outlet line configured to connect to one or more outlets (Liu par. [n0063] “drinking silicon tube”); a tank (Liu par. [n0024] “double layered silica gel bag”) having a flexible membrane (Liu par. [n0023 “reverse osmosis rolled membrane” rolled membranes are flexible) dividing an internal volume of the tank into a first portion (Liu par. [n0024] “inner layer”) and a second portion (Liu par. [n0024] “outer layer”); a first line fluidly connected to the first portion of the tank (Liu par. [n0023] “permeate PE material conduit”); a second line fluidly connected to the second portion of the tank (Liu par. [n0023] “concentrate PE material conduit”); and a switching valve (Kaufman abstract “four way valve”) connected between the first line (Kaufman abstract “first port”), the second line (Kaufman abstract “second port”), the waste fluid inlet line (Kaufman #240 “first conduit”), and the treated waste fluid outlet line (Kaufman #250 “second conduit”), wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the waste fluid inlet line and the second line with the treated waste fluid outlet line in a first state (Kaufman abstract “first orientation”), wherein the switching valve is configured to connect the first line with the treated waste fluid outlet line and the second line with the waste fluid inlet line in a second state (Kaufman abstract in the “second orientation”), wherein, in the first state (Kaufman abstract “first orientation”), the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the first line at the first portion causing the flexible membrane (Kaufman col. 3 line 28 “flexible diaphragm”) to flex and to reduce the volume of the second portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the second line and to the one or more outlets, and wherein, in the second state (Kaufman abstract in the “second orientation”), the tank is configured to receive treated waste fluid from the second line at the second portion causing the flexible membrane (Kaufman col. 3 line 28 “flexible diaphragm”) to flex and to reduce the volume of the first portion to cause treated waste fluid to flow out to the first line and to the one or more outlets.
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 13, wherein the one or more treatment components include a waste fluid treatment bed (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter”).
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 14, wherein the waste fluid treatment bed is a carbon filter (Liu par. [n0023] “granular activated carbon direct filter”) configured to filter waste fluid.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 15, wherein the one or more treatment components include a waste fluid treatment membrane (Liu par. [n0023] “reverse osmosis rolled membrane assembly”) configured to be selectively permeable (Liu par. [n0038]) to separate water from waste fluid.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 13, wherein the one or more outlets include a contingency consumption outlet such that the treated waste fluid flows from the tank directly to a location to be consumed (Liu par. [n0063] “drinking silicon tube”).
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 13, further comprising a dead man switch (Kaufman col. 5 line 35) on the waste fluid inlet line upstream of the switching valve.
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the space suit of claim 13, further comprising a pressurized gas source (Liu claim 2 “spacesuit”) configured to connect to the waste fluid inlet line to pressurize waste fluid from the waste fluid source.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN-213443143-U) in view of Kaufman (US-10704696-B2) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Li (CN-110980886-A An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Kaufman discloses the system of claim 3.
Liu in view of Kaufman does not disclose further comprising a first pressure sensor upstream of the carbon filter and a second pressure sensor downstream of the carbon filter to allow determination of life of filter based on pressure drop.
Li discloses a water purifying device comprising a first pressure sensor (Li p. 3 “third pressure sensor”) upstream of a carbon filter (Li p.3 “active carbon filter”) and a second pressure sensor downstream of the carbon filter (Li p.3 “pressure sensors, four” to allow determination of life of filter based on pressure drop (Li p. 3 “pressure difference value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the pressure sensor arrangement of Li with the system of Liu to provide a first pressure sensor upstream of the carbon filter and a second pressure sensor downstream of the carbon filter to allow determination of life of filter based on pressure drop. They are both within the art of treating a fluid with reverse osmosis and activated carbon and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the benefit of predicting filter replacement prior to a blockage would provide safety and reliability for any users relying on the technology in space.
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 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