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
Claims 1-9 are pending:
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected.
Claims 5-8 have been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202021043600, filed on 10/07/2020.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
On pgs. 8-9 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
The Applicant respectfully submits that Heinzl and McGinnis, neither alone nor in combination, teaches or suggests the limitations:
a) A gasket (22, 23) is positioned adjacent to the modular frame (20) to provide a sealing between the modular frame with another frame.
b) A distance bar (21) extending away from a periphery of the modular frame (20), wherein the distance bar (21) is configured to provide a predefined gap between two modular frames (20) for flow without welding, and to maintain the gasket (22, 23) in a compressed position up to an extent level between two modular frames.
c) The outer section (1) further comprises an outer frame (27) and an inner frame (26), wherein a plurality of cross-members (40) are positioned between outer frame (27) and an inner frame (26).
d) The active section (3) further comprises a grid (14) consisting of a plurality of flow channels.
e) The flow section (2) further comprises at least one internal flow passage (15,16) and at least one external flow passage (17, 18), wherein the at least one internal flow passage (15, 16) and the at least one external flow passage (17, 18) are connected to the grid (14) in the active section (3).
Hence, the Applicant respectfully submits that Heinzl and McGinnis, either alone, or in combination, fails to disclose, teach or suggest at least these features of claim 1. Therefore, Heinzl and McGinnis, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach or suggest all the features of Claim 1. Claims 2-4 and new claim 9 depend from independent claim 1 and therefore include each and every patentable feature of claim 1. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests favorable consideration and allowance of the claims 1-4 and 9.
This is not found persuasive because McGinnis teaches the claimed gasket and distance bar. The silicon seal 47 shown in Fig. 4C of McGinnis reads on the claimed gasket and distance bar (see annotated Fig. 4M below); additionally, McGinnis teaches that the seal includes compressible or adhesive sealing materials (see ¶57 of McGinnis). Additionally, the claims nor the instant specification restricts gaskets to exclude seals. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
[AltContent: textbox (distance bar)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
406
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202021043600, filed on 10/07/2020.
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinzl (WO 2019/233611) in view of McGinnis (US 2015/014232).
Regarding claim 1, Heinzl teaches a modular frame (20) (condensation/evaporation element 101, see ABS) for use in a fluid separation system, comprising: at least three sections between an outer edge and an inner area of the modular frame (see Figs. 2-3), wherein three sections comprise an outer section (1) (openings 14, 15), a flow section (2) (central inner region 40), and an active section (3) (channels 17, 18), wherein the flow section (2) is positioned between the outer section (1), and the active section (3) (see Figs. 2-3)…
the outer section (1) further comprises an outer frame (27) (outer frame 39) and an inner frame (26) (inner frame 43), wherein a plurality of cross-members (40) are positioned between outer frame (27) and an inner frame (26) (see Fig. 2); the active section (3) further comprises a grid (14) consisting of a plurality of flow channels (drain channel openings 22c and these openings 22c are in the form of a grid); and the flow section (2) further comprises at least one internal flow passage (15, 16) and at least one external flow passage (17, 18) (the flow path is implied in Figs. 4A-4C), wherein the at least one internal flow passage (15, 16) and the at least one external flow passage (17, 18) are connected to the grid (14) in the active section (3) (see Figs. 4A-4C).
Heinzl does not teach a gasket (22, 23) is positioned adjacent to the modular frame (20) to provide a sealing between the modular frame with another frame; a distance bar (21) extending away from a periphery of the modular frame (20),wherein the distance bar (21) is configured to provide a predefined gap between two modular frames (20) for flow without welding, and to maintain the gasket (22, 23) in a compressed position up to an extent level between two modular frames.
In a related field of endeavor, McGinnis teaches a membrane module (see ABS) comprising a gasket (22, 23) (silicon seal 47) is positioned adjacent to the modular frame (20) to provide a sealing between the modular frame with another frame (see Fig. 4C of silicon seal 47 in groove frame which is provided as an alternative too welding; see ¶38); and a distance bar (21) (see annotated Fig. 4M below) extending away from a periphery of the modular frame (20), wherein the distance bar (21) is configured to provide a pre- defined gap between two modular frames (20) for flow without welding, and to maintain the gasket (22, 23) in a compressed position up to an extent level between two modular frames (see ¶38).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
406
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (distance bar)]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify to Heinzl by including the gasket and distance bar as disclosed by McGinnis because the combination of elements creates a reliable seal between two surfaces for the benefit of preventing leaks and protecting components from contaminants.
Regarding claim 2, Heinzl and McGinnis teach the modular frame (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner frame (26) has a plurality of bends positioned along an entire periphery of the inner frame (26) (Heinzl, i.e. inner frame 43), each bend is positioned at a pre-set distance with an angle on the periphery of the inner frame (26), positioned at a distance with an angle on the periphery of the inner frame (26) (Heinzl, i.e. inner frame 43).
Regarding claim 3, Heinzl and McGinnis teach the modular frame (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flow section (2) further comprises a plurality of chambers (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) positioned adjacent to each other (Heinzl, the central inner region 40 may comprise grid-like spacer, see ¶354).
Regarding claim 4, Heinzl and McGinnis teach the modular frame (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modular frame (20) further comprises a groove (24) configured to receive the gasket (22, 23) (McGinnis, silicon seal 47 is in a groove in Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 9, Heinzl and McGinnis teach the modular frame (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of modular frames (20) (Heinzl, first and second frames 101, 102) are fastened together without welding, forming a fluid separation system (Heinzl, modular stack).
Heinzl further discloses welding as an exemplary means to combine the modular stack, but does not explicitly teach fastened together without welding however Heinzl does not particularly limit fastening methods to welding; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the fastening means of Heinzl with a fastening means without welding as conventionally known in the art because it is the simple substitution of one known means with another known means without welding for the benefit of providing an assembly that is cost-effective, high flexibility and easily repairable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights