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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0147536A1), in view of Li (CN 113019129A, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches A filtration system comprising:
a filtration tank configured (300) to allow feed water to be treated to be introduced thereinto; first and second filtration apparatuses (refer fig. 1 indicating two filtration apparatus in frames two 600) each of which is configured to perform filtration work while at least a part thereof is submerged in the feed water (refer fig. 1 indicating the filtration apparatus being submerged in tank 300);
a driving unit (205) configured to enable reciprocating motion of the first and second filtration apparatuses;
a rail (511) configured to guide the reciprocating motion of the first and second filtration apparatuses,
wherein the first filtration apparatus comprises:
a first frame (600); and
a first membrane module installed in the first frame (Refer fig. 23),
wherein the second filtration apparatus comprises:
a second frame (600); and
a second membrane module installed in the second frame (refer fig. 23).
Lee discloses that the horizontal linear motion membranes are installed on a common support frame (250) which supports the membrane support frames (600). Lee does not disclose providing support members on the support frames (600), wherein the support members and providing horizontal linear motion members installed at the support members.
Li discloses a filtration system comprising a filtration tank, a plurality of membrane modules (2), a driving unit (3) providing linear motion to the membrane modules (refer fig. 1, fig. 2). Li discloses that the membrane module comprises a frame having support members on the support frames and horizontal linear motion members installed at the support members (Refer fig. 2 indicating connecting rods 7 having sliding bearings attached to membrane module frame, wherein the sliding bearing move along rail/mounting platform). Li discloses providing individual support members and linear motion members for each of filtration modules (Refer fig. 1 disclosing the membrane modules to be independent from each other and only to be connected with each other by a connecting rod connecting to the driving unit).
Selecting whether to provide the support members and linear motion members on the membrane frames (600) or common support frame (250) of Lee would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Li establishes that providing support members and linear motion members on membrane frame is known in the art. Li discloses providing individual support members and linear motion members for each of filtration modules (Refer fig. 1 disclosing the membrane modules to be independent from each other and only to be connected with each other by a connecting rod connecting to the driving unit). Providing similar configuration in the system of Lee would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the driving unit comprises a motor (33), a power transfer member (32) which is connected to only the first filtration apparatus among the first and second filtration apparatuses (refer fig. 1 indicating the rod 32 is connected to the 1st unit and remaining units are connected via a second rod 6); and motion conversion mechanism (311) converting rotary motion of the motor into linear reciprocating motion of the power transfer member (refer fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 13 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the motion conversion mechanism comprises: a crank (230) configured to be rotated by the motor; and a connecting rod (220) having one end connected to the crank and the other end connected to the power transfer member.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 13 as set forth above. Li teaches that the driving unit is connected to only the first filtration apparatus among the first and second filtration apparatus (refer fig. 2 and 3 indicating rod 32 of driving unit connecting to the first filtration apparatus, the second and third filtration apparatus is connected to rod 32 via additional rod 6). Li also teaches that the first filtration apparatus is disposed between the driving unit and the second filtration apparatus such that the second filtration apparatus can be moved by motion of the first filtration apparatus (Refer fig. 2, 3). Lee also teaches that the first filtration apparatus connected to the driving unit; and the first filtration apparatus is disposed between the driving unit and the second filtration apparatus such that the second filtration apparatus can be linearly moved by linear motion of the first filtration apparatus (refer fig. 1 indicating the first and second filtration apparatus moving simultaneous on rail).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Lee teaches that the driving unit comprises: a motor (210); a power transfer member connected to the first filtration apparatus by means of at least one first connector (the link rod comprises openings for connecting to a portion of the frame); and a motion conversion mechanism configured to convert rotary motion of the motor into linear reciprocating motion of the power transfer member (drive mechanism comprises rotor 203 and link rod 220 which converts rotational motion to linear motion). And Li discloses that the second filtration apparatus is connected to the first filtration apparatus by means of a connector (refer rod 6).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Lee teaches a vertical motion-inhibiting member (Refer fig. 9B indicating support unit 580 interlocking rolling wheel and guide rail). Selecting number of coupling members for each of the filtration apparatus would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0147536A1), in view of Li (CN 113019129A, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 107352642A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 13 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the frame comprises (refer annotated fig. 23 of Lee below):
PNG
media_image1.png
804
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an upper horizontal frame; a lower horizontal frame; a plurality of vertical members configured to connect the upper horizontal frame and the lower horizontal frame to each other.
Li discloses frame having support members on the support frames and motion members installed at the support members (Refer fig. 2 indicating connecting rods 7 having sliding bearings attached to membrane module frame, wherein the sliding bearing move along rail/mounting platform). Li discloses providing the support members and sliding bearing in a middle portion of the frame. Regarding the limitation, wherein the first and second support members are coupled to upper horizontal frame of the respective first and second frames, Lee discloses providing linear motion members on upper part of a common frame (250) which is attached to the frames (600). Since Lee discloses that the linear motion members can be provided along upper part of the membrane frame, modifying the arrangement of linear motion member to the upper horizontal frame of the modified Lee would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness that are applicable in this instance include: Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Li discloses that the rail is disposed in the filtration tank. Lee does not disclose that the power transfer member, and the motion conversion mechanism are disposed in the filtration tank, however, providing the power transfer member, the motion conversion mechanism, and the rail inside the tank would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since such configuration is known in the art and disclosed by Liu (refer fig. 1, 2 and 3). Liu discloses a filtration system having reciprocating filter modules mounted on a track and support (4), the reciprocating motion is generated by a motor, crank (21), crank connecting rod (22), and sliding connecting rod (23) which are located inside a treatment tank (refer fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the driving unit further comprises a power transfer mechanism configured to transfer the rotary motion of the motor to the motion conversion mechanism (refer fig. 2 disclosing motor connected to pulleys 213, rotor 230, and link rod 220). Lee discloses that the motor, pulleys, rotor, and link rod are mounted on the tank (Refer fig. 1). Liu discloses a system where the motor, crank (21), crank connecting rod (22), and sliding connecting rod (23) are located inside a treatment tank (refer fig. 2). Selecting which components to be mounted outside or inside the tank would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Lee discloses mounting components on top of the tank and Liu discloses mounting components inside the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 17 is allowable over cited prior arts, Lee (US 2018/0147536A1), Li (CN 113019129A), and Liu et al. (CN 107352642A). The cited prior arts teach system of claim 12, however, fail to teach that the second support members are coupled to the second upwardly extending subframe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 108358308 teaches a filtration system comprising membrane frame, a moving frame, a driving device and two parallel support rails (refer fig. 1, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights