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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, and 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shintani et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0043298).
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25: Shintani et al. teach a method for cleaning hollow fiber membranes the method comprising a first cleaning step of backwashing [0065] and a second step of air scrubbing [0065]. The backwashing occurs when at least 50% by volume or greater of water in the module is removed [0062]. The backwashing and air scrubbing can be performed simultaneously [0065]. Shintani et al. keep the orientation of the membrane modules [0057, “while keeping the clarification membranes 1 so that the position of the open ends 2 above the position of the closed ends 3” and 0062, they title this the “open-end high-position backwashing step”].
Claim 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33: following cleaning, there is a “third cleaning” wherein the suspended component is discharged [0060]. The “third cleaning” involves flushing water through the rawside and drawing it down [0060, 0070-0071]. Further, additional cleanings are taught including cleanings requiring passing of fluid from the filtrate side through the raw side [0088].
Claim 34: the hollow fiber membrane module comprises a hollow fiber membrane bundle comprising hollow fiber membranes [0012], a housing [0012, Fig. 1, 4], an adhesive portion by which both ends of the hollow fiber membrane bundle are adhesively fixed [0045-0046], an inlet [0021, element 6], filtered water port [0021, 0025, 0048], and a cleaning outlet [0048, drain nozzle 7].
Claim 35: the membranes are ultrafiltration membranes [0099] or microfiltration membranes [0100].
Claim 36: the membranes are potted at both the upper end and the lower ends using a potting material [0045-0046, i.e. a resin].
Claim 37 : Shintani et al. teach a method for cleaning hollow fiber membranes the method comprising a first cleaning step of backwashing [0065] and a second step of air scrubbing [0065]. The backwashing occurs when at least 50% by volume or greater of water in the module is removed [0062]. The backwashing and air scrubbing can be performed simultaneously [0065]. Shintani et al. keep the orientation of the membrane modules [0057, “while keeping the clarification membranes 1 so that the position of the open ends 2 above the position of the closed ends 3” and 0062, they title this the “open-end high-position backwashing step”]. The water is removed during a reverse-flow cleaning treatment by passing water from a filtered water side to a raw water side [0057, wherein during cleaning the drain valve is open and water is backwashed through the membrane and 0060, wherein the water level should be kept as low as possible]. Then, after the open-end high-position backwashing step, the membranes are scrubbed with air [0065].
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0043298).
Claim 23: Shintani et al. teach separation of components of various sizes depending on the intended use [0099] but not specifically a mass percentage removed. However, the mass percentage of suspended components removed depends on the amount of suspended components in the initial solution, which varies by sample, and the specifics of the membranes. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to optimize he amount of % by mass of suspended components removed to be greater than 7% as the goal is to clean the water and an ultimate goal would be 100% removal of suspended components. It is also noted that Shintani et al. teach the same fluid incoming and the same membrane module and therefore it would be expected that the membrane module would function in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shintani et al. necessarily and unequivocally require some membrane re-orientation during cleaning.
While in some embodiments, they do teach this, it is clear in the embodiment relied upon for the rejection that Shintani et al. keep the orientation just as it was during filtration. See [0057] that clearly teaches “keeping the clarification membranes 1 so that the position of the open ends 2 is above the position of the closed ends 3”. As discussed in MPEP 2123, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
With respect to new claim 37, please see the rejection above. Applicant misinterprets Shintani et al.’s teachings and from [0061] it is clear that water remains during backwashing and is filtered down during backwashing. [0065] clearly teaches air scrubbing following open-end high-position backwashing step.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights