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 .
Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title of the application is “Method for Washing Hollow Fiber Membrane Module”. The claims elected for examination are to a hollow fiber membrane module, not a method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (USP 4367139).
Claims 1 and 18: A hollow fiber membrane module (Fig. 1, 10), comprising: a hollow fiber membrane bundle composed of a plurality of hollow fiber membranes; a housing in which the hollow fiber membrane bundle is housed (Fig. 1, 12); and an adhesive fixing portion by which opposing ends of the hollow fiber membrane bundle are adhesively fixed to the housing (Fig. 1, 32 and 30), wherein the hollow fiber membranes are microfiltration (MF) membranes or ultrafiltration (UF) membranes (the reference does not specifically teach microfiltration or ultrafiltration but hollow fiber membranes are microfiltration or smaller, including ultrafiltration), the housing includes a first tubular member for housing the hollow fiber membrane bundle (Fig. 1, area between 30 and 32) and a second tubular member for arranging the adhesive fixing portion (Fig. 1, area from 30 to 38), the adhesive portion can be 30 or 18), the adhesive fixing portion comprises a first adhesive fixing layer (Fig. 1, 30 or 18) for adhesively fixing hollow fiber membranes to each other and the hollow fiber membrane bundle to an interior wall of the housing via a resin material at one end of the hollow fiber membranes (col. 7, lines 38-60); and a second adhesive fixing layer (Fig. 1, 32) for adhesively fixing the hollow fiber membranes to each other and the hollow fiber membrane bundle to an interior wall of the housing via another resin material at the other end of the hollow fiber membranes, the hollow fiber membrane module comprises an inlet (Fig. 1, 24) for communicating between an exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and a space outside the hollow fiber membranes; a filtered water port for communicating between the exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and spaces inside the hollow fiber membranes (Fig. 1, 38); and a cleaning outlet (Fig. 1, 36) for communicating between the exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and the space outside the hollow fiber membranes.
Graham teaches the (A) a packing rate of the hollow fiber membranes, which is expressed as a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the hollow fiber membranes to an internal cross-sectional area of the housing, is 38% or less (col. 10, line 5-8, wherein “ at least about 35” is less than 38%); (B) an outer diameter of the hollow fiber membranes is 1.1 mm or less (col. 10, lines 26-51); (D) an effective length of the hollow fiber membranes is 1.6 m or more (Claim 22) ; (E) a number of hollow fiber membranes in the hollow fiber membrane bundle is 11,000 or more (col. 8, lines 43-48).
Graham does not explicitly teach the total membrane surface area. Graham does teach the same range of number of membranes, length of membranes, and membrane diameter. It would logically follow that the total membrane area is similar. Graham also indicates that the surface area of the membranes is a result effective variable that is routinely optimized in order to control efficiency of the hollow fiber membrane device. They discuss this with respect to the varying fiber diameters which is controlled in order to optimize surface area for efficient fluid treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Graham does not teach the “footprint” variable as claimed and defined by Applicant to be “a value obtained by dividing the total membrane area of the hollow fiber membranes by the cross-sectional area of the first tubular member of the housing” or that the variable is 2,500 m2/m2 or more.
The membrane area is a result effective variable that is optimized to provide the most amount of area available for fluid contact for a more efficient separation. The cross sectional area of the overall device is a result effective variable that is optimized based on the number of membranes required, the size of those membranes, and the space requirement. There does not appear to be any criticality or patentable novelty associated with the claimed footprint size. And since the variables that are used to calculate the footprint size are routinely optimized result effective variables, it follows that the footprint as defined would be a routinely optimized variable as it is simply establishing a relationship between the membrane area and the diameter of the housing. This relationship would be optimized in order to control the overall dimensions of the device based on space requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious that this would need to be done for any real world implementation of any hollow fiber membrane contactor device including Graham’s. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 3: There is no requirement of “a restricting member for restricting an arrangement of the hollow fiber membranes” as part of the adhesive fixing portion.
Claim 4: the hollow ends of the membrane are sealed at one end (Fig. 1, 34)
Claim 17: Graham does not teach the “surface opening ratio of the hollow fiber membranes”.
Graham teaches that the void volume is the opening volume within the walls of the membrane (col. 10, lines 60-67; col. 11, lines 1-5) and that the voids allow for “desirable fluxes”. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the “surface opening ratio of the hollow fiber membrane” would be similarly related to flux as any interior void space allowing for pass through (i.e. flux) would have a surface opening to coincide. Therefore, as much as the void space is a result effective variable that controls flux through the membrane, so is the surface opening ratio as without a surface opening you have no void space allowing flux. There does not appear to be any criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed surface opening ratios. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 1, 3-5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Taniguchi et al. (USP 6322703).
Claims 1, 5, and 18: A hollow fiber membrane module (Fig. 1, 10), comprising: a hollow fiber membrane bundle composed of a plurality of hollow fiber membranes; a housing in which the hollow fiber membrane bundle is housed (Fig. 1, 12); and an adhesive fixing portion by which opposing ends of the hollow fiber membrane bundle are adhesively fixed to the housing (Fig. 1, 32 and 30), wherein the hollow fiber membranes are microfiltration (MF) membranes or ultrafiltration (UF) membranes (the reference does not specifically teach microfiltration or ultrafiltration but hollow fiber membranes are microfiltration or smaller, including ultrafiltration), the housing includes a first tubular member for housing the hollow fiber membrane bundle (Fig. 1, area between 30 and 32) and a second tubular member for arranging the adhesive fixing portion (Fig. 1, area from 30 to 38), the adhesive portion can be 30 or 18), the adhesive fixing portion comprises a first adhesive fixing layer (Fig. 1, 30 or 18) for adhesively fixing hollow fiber membranes to each other via a resin material at one end of the hollow fiber membranes (col. 7, lines 38-60); and a second adhesive fixing layer (Fig. 1, 34) for adhesively fixing the hollow fiber membranes to each other and the hollow fiber membrane bundle to an interior wall of the housing via another resin material at the other end of the hollow fiber membranes, the hollow fiber membrane module comprises an inlet (Fig. 1, 24) for communicating between an exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and a space outside the hollow fiber membranes; a filtered water port for communicating between the exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and spaces inside the hollow fiber membranes (Fig. 1, 38); and a cleaning outlet (Fig. 1, 36) for communicating between the exterior portion of the hollow fiber membrane module and the space outside the hollow fiber membranes.
Graham teaches the (A) a packing rate of the hollow fiber membranes, which is expressed as a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the hollow fiber membranes to an internal cross-sectional area of the housing, is 38% or less (col. 10, line 5-8, wherein “ at least about 35” is less than 38%); (B) an outer diameter of the hollow fiber membranes is 1.1 mm or less (col. 10, lines 26-51); (D) an effective length of the hollow fiber membranes is 1.6 m or more (Claim 22) ; (E) a number of hollow fiber membranes in the hollow fiber membrane bundle is 11,000 or more (col. 8, lines 43-48).
Graham does not explicitly teach the total membrane surface area. Graham does teach the same range of number of membranes, length of membranes, and membrane diameter. It would logically follow that the total membrane area is similar. Graham also indicates that the surface area of the membranes is a result effective variable that is routinely optimized in order to control efficiency of the hollow fiber membrane device. They discuss this with respect to the varying fiber diameters which is controlled in order to optimize surface area for efficient fluid treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Graham does not teach the “footprint” variable as claimed and defined by Applicant to be “a value obtained by dividing the total membrane area of the hollow fiber membranes by the cross-sectional area of the first tubular member of the housing” or that the variable is 2,500 m2/m2 or more.
The membrane area is a result effective variable that is optimized to provide the most amount of area available for fluid contact for a more efficient separation. The cross sectional area of the overall device is a result effective variable that is optimized based on the number of membranes required, the size of those membranes, and the space requirement. There does not appear to be any criticality or patentable novelty associated with the claimed footprint size. And since the variables that are used to calculate the footprint size are routinely optimized result effective variables, it follows that the footprint as defined would be a routinely optimized variable as it is simply establishing a relationship between the membrane area and the diameter of the housing. This relationship would be optimized in order to control the overall dimensions of the device based on space requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious that this would need to be done for any real world implementation of any hollow fiber membrane contactor device including Graham’s. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Graham does not teach that the second adhesive member (34) fixes the fibers to the wall.
However, Taniguchi et al. teach a similar membrane contactor wherein the both ends of adhesive, including the closed end (Fig. 5, 44) are attached to the wall so as to provide structure and stability to the hollow fiber membranes in the housing. Taniguichi et al. provides holes in the adhesive layer to allow for fluid to flow.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to provide attachment between Graham’s resin and the wall of the adhesive 34 to provide stability and structure to the membranes and then to include holes so as to allow fluid to flow through the device to the outlet.
Claim 3: There is no requirement of “a restricting member for restricting an arrangement of the hollow fiber membranes” as part of the adhesive fixing portion.
Claim 4: the hollow ends of the membrane are sealed at one end (Fig. 1, 34)
Claim 17: Graham does not teach the “surface opening ratio of the hollow fiber membranes”.
Graham teaches that the void volume is the opening volume within the walls of the membrane (col. 10, lines 60-67; col. 11, lines 1-5) and that the voids allow for “desirable fluxes”. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the “surface opening ratio of the hollow fiber membrane” would be similarly related to flux as any interior void space allowing for pass through (i.e. flux) would have a surface opening to coincide. Therefore, as much as the void space is a result effective variable that controls flux through the membrane, so is the surface opening ratio as without a surface opening you have no void space allowing flux. There does not appear to be any criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed surface opening ratios. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights