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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 7, and claims dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 over Hill and Jovanic, of record or a combination thereof have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Arguments that each of Hill and Jovanic, of record, lack a teaching of utilizing porous mediums having differing affinities for a 1st and 2nd fluid phase are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections of record based on Hill and Jovanic, have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-23, 28, 30 and 32 are made in view of Patent Publication CN111203003A in view of Hill, of record.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-23, 28, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication CN111203003, (Publication ‘003) and the accompanying Escapenet English Translation of publication ‘003 in view of Hill et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0103903 (Hill). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied Escapenet translation and of the PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols. For the Escapenet translation, the “[ ]” symbol refers to the paragraph immediately above or preceding the symbol.
For independent claim 1, Publication ‘003 discloses: A separator 1 (figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a fluidic channel 3 comprising an inlet at a first end (opening to inlet line 8) and an opposing closed second end (figures 1 and 2);
a first porous medium portion 5 defining at least a portion of a wall of the fluidic channel (figures 1 and 2 illustrating edge regions of medium portion 5 extending along segments or “portions” of side and end walls of the channel), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel and a first auxiliary outlet 10 (figures 1 and 2 and [0018 re “oil outlet pipe 10”]); and
a second porous medium portion 6 defining at least a portion of a wall of the fluidic channel (figures 1 and 2 illustrating edge regions of medium portion 6 extending along segments or “portions” of side and end walls of the channel), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel and a second auxiliary outlet 9 (figures 1 and 2 and [0018 re “water outlet pipe 9”]),
wherein the first porous medium portion 5 has a higher affinity for a first fluid phase (oil) of a combined flow of oil and water [0005 “water/oil mixture separation”] than for a second fluid phase (water) of the combined flow (translation [0008, 0009, 0012 and 0018 re medium portion 5 being an oleophilic-hydrophobic mesh or membrane, thus having a higher affinity for oil than for water and tending to repulse water]), and
the second porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the second fluid phase than for the first fluid phase (translation [0008, 0009, 0012 and 0018 re medium portion 6 being a hydrophilic-oleophobic mesh or membrane, thus having a higher affinity for water than for oil and tending to repulse oil]).
Claim 1 differs from ‘003 by requiring that the channel comprises both an inlet and an outlet.
Hill teaches a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084] and an outlet 906 (figure 1 and [0015]);
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 [0084].
Hill teaches that such separator is used for separating fluids restricting some fluids and allowing other fluids to flow through (Abstract, [0003, 0004, 0009]), the fluid separation effected by membranes or filters [0039]) and suggests that utilizing separation through a channel having an inlet and an outlet, enhances separation velocities fluid flow characteristics and control of fluid interface velocity and fluid contact time in the separator [0050 and 0051], and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel [0005], which can be effected by providing a controller such as controller 502 and one or more pumps [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating phases of a liquid mixture to have modified the separator of ‘003 by providing an outlet to the channel, opposite the inlet, as taught by Hill, in order to enhance separation velocities fluid flow characteristics and control of fluid interface velocity and fluid contact time in the separator, and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel, which can be effected by providing a controller to control one or more flow pumps.
Publication ‘003 further discloses:
for claim 3, wherein at least a portion of the first porous medium portion faces the second porous medium portion (figure 2);
for claim 4, wherein the first porous medium portion is hydrophilic and the second porous medium portion is hydrophobic [0008 re hydrophilic and hydrophobic mesh] ;
for claims 5 and 6, wherein the first or second porous medium portion is part of a porous membrane [0008 re hydrophilic and hydrophobic mesh or membranes];
Separator claim 22 further differs by requiring wherein at least one of the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion comprises pores having a diameter of at least 10 nanometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers,
while claim 23 further differs by requiring wherein at least one of the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion is an ultrafiltration membrane or a microfiltration membrane.
Hill further teaches utilizing crossflow membranes which may comprise micro-sieves or nanosieves, i.e. “an ultrafiltration or a microfiltration membrane”, and have a high and uniform density of pores and low flow resistance, hence inherently or by definition have a pore diameter of between 10 nm and 10 micrometers, and thus advantageously be resistant to reverse flow through the separator [0005].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized crossflow membranes comprising micro-sieves or nanosieves, i.e. “an ultrafiltration or a microfiltration membrane”, which have a high and uniform density of pores and low flow resistance, hence having a pore diameter of between 10 nm and 10 micrometers, in order to decrease flow resistance and be resistant to reverse flow through the separator.
Separator claim 28 further differs by requiring wherein the separator is configured such that a differential pressure across each of the 1st and 2nd porous medium portions does not exceed the respective capillary pressures.
Hill further suggests such pressure phenomenon by teaching separation channel and membrane filter being configured to maintain a positive trans-filter pressure along the length of the filter, thus implying relatively low differential pressures, so as to convey fluids being separated out of the channel outlets at determined flow rates [0009].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have configured the flow channel and separation filter mesh or membranes of ‘003 to have such relatively low differential pressures, as taught by Hill, in order to convey fluids being separated out of the channel outlets at determined flow rates.
For independent method claim 7, publication ‘003 discloses: A method, comprising: presenting a combined flow comprising a first fluid phase (oil) and a second fluid phase (water) to a separator 1 (figures 1 and 2 and [0005 “water/oil mixture separation”]), comprising:
a fluidic channel 3 comprising an inlet at a first end (opening to inlet line 8) and an opposing closed second end (figures 1 and 2,);
a first porous medium portion 5 defining at least a portion of a wall of the fluidic channel (figures 1 and 2 illustrating edge regions of medium portion 5 extending along segments or “portions” of side and end walls of the channel), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel and a first auxiliary outlet 10 (figures 1 and 2 and [0018 re “oil outlet pipe 10”]); and
a second porous medium portion 6 defining at least a portion of a wall of the fluidic channel (figures 1 and 2 illustrating edge regions of medium portion 6 extending along segments or “portions” of side and end walls of the channel), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel and a second auxiliary outlet 9 (figures 1 and 2 and [0018 re “water outlet pipe 9”]),
wherein the first porous medium portion 5 has a higher affinity for a first fluid phase (oil) of a combined flow of oil and water than for a second fluid phase (water) of the combined flow, such that the first fluid phase is preferentially transported through the first porous medium portion relative to the second fluid phase (translation [0008, 0009, 0012 and 0018 re medium portion 5 being an oleophilic-hydrophobic mesh or membrane, thus having a higher affinity for oil than for water and tending to repulse water]), and
the second porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the second fluid phase than for the first fluid phase, such that the second fluid phase is preferentially transported through the second porous medium portion relative to the first fluid phase (translation [0008, 0009, 0012 and 0018 re medium portion 6 being a hydrophilic-oleophobic mesh or membrane, thus having a higher affinity for water than for oil and tending to repulse oil]).
Claim 7 differs from ‘003 by requiring that the channel comprises both an inlet and an outlet.
Hill teaches a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084] and an outlet 906 (figure 1 and [0015]);
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 [0084].
Hill teaches that such separator is used for separating fluids restricting some fluids and allowing other fluids to flow through (Abstract, [0003, 0004, 0009]), the fluid separation effected by membranes or filters [0039]) and suggests that utilizing separation through a channel having an inlet and an outlet, enhances separation velocities fluid flow characteristics and control of fluid interface velocity and fluid contact time in the separator [0050 and 0051], and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel [0005], which can be effected by providing a controller such as controller 502 and one or more pumps [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separating phases of a liquid mixture to have modified the separator provided in the method of ‘003 by providing an outlet to the channel, opposite the inlet, as taught by Hill, in order to enhance separation velocities fluid flow characteristics and control of fluid interface velocity and fluid contact time in the separator, and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel and minimize and/or eliminate reverse flow through the channel, which can be effected by providing a controller to control one or more flow pumps.
Publication ‘003 further discloses:
for claim 9, wherein at least a portion of the first porous medium portion faces the second porous medium portion (figure 2);
for claim 10, wherein the first fluid phase is a liquid phase, and the second fluid phase is a liquid phase [0008 re separation of an oil phase from a water phase of a combined, water-oil mixture];
for claim 13, wherein the first porous medium portion is hydrophilic and the second porous medium portion is hydrophobic [0008 re hydrophilic and hydrophobic mesh] ;
for claim 14, wherein the first fluid phase is an aqueous phase, and the second fluid phase is a non-aqueous liquid phase [0008 re separation of an oil phase from a water or aqueous phase of a combined, water-oil mixture];
for claim 16, wherein the first porous medium portion defines at least a portion of a first side of the fluidic channel, and the second porous medium portion defines at least a portion of a second side of the fluidic channel facing the first side of the fluidic channel (evident from figures 1 and 2);
for claims 17 and 18, wherein the first or second porous medium portion is part of a porous membrane [0008 re hydrophilic and hydrophobic mesh or membranes];
Claim 19 further differs from ‘003 by requiring the method as further comprising transporting a portion of the combined flow out of the separator and recycling at least a portion of the combined flow that is transported out of the separator back into the separator.
Hill as described in [0051], teaches returning a portion of the combined flow out of the separator in a recycling flow back to the channel having the porous medium portions. Such recycling flow would inherently enable repeated passes of a fluid mixture being purified through the channel resulting in a more highly purified fluid product, free of undesirable particles or other material.
It would have hence been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation utilizing fluidic separators to have further modified the method of ‘003, by arranging for such fluid flow transporting and recycling flow, as taught by Hill, in order to provide a more highly purified fluid product, free of undesirable particles or other material.
Claims 20 and 21 respectively further differ from what is explicitly disclosed in publication ‘003, by requiring wherein the volumetric flux of the first fluid phase through the first porous medium portion is at least 1.5 times greater than the volumetric flux of the second fluid phase through the first porous medium portion, or alternately wherein the volumetric flux of the second fluid phase through the second porous medium portion is at least 1.5 times greater than the volumetric flux of the first fluid phase through the second porous medium portion.
However, publication ‘003 also discloses separation of the two-phase mixture into separate water and oil phases [0026], thus suggesting substantially complete removal of 2nd fluid phase from 1st fluid phase, inherently resulting in a much greater volumetric flux of 1st fluid phase relative to 2nd fluid phase through the 1st porous medium portion, and corresponding much greater volumetric flux of 2nd fluid phase relative to 1st fluid phase through the 2nd porous medium portion.
Thus, in summary, the recited relative volumetric fluxes of the phases of the liquid mixture being separated, is deemed to be a results-effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized in the method disclosed by ‘003, by routine experimentation, as taught by Jovanovic, so as to optimize flux and separation efficiency of the phases by selection of particular fluid mixtures for separation and by these channel design changes.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in Section 2144.05, parts I and II contains court decisions that have established precedence that particular parameter values or ranges may be insufficient to patentably distinguish where the prior art concerns overlapping, approaching and similar ranges and amounts of such parameters, absent a finding of criticality or unexpected results.
Method claim 28 further differs by requiring wherein the separator is configured such that a differential pressure across each of the 1st and 2nd porous medium portions does not exceed the respective capillary pressures.
Hill further suggests such pressure phenomenon by teaching separation channel and membrane filter being configured to maintain a positive trans-filter pressure along the length of the filter, thus implying relatively low differential pressures, so as to convey fluids being separated out of the channel outlets at determined flow rates [0009].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have configured the flow channel and separation filter mesh or membranes of ‘003 to have such relatively low differential pressures, as taught by Hill, in order to convey fluids being separated out of the channel outlets at determined flow rates.
For claim 30, Hill further teaches controlling flow rates and thus amount of positive or “differential” pressure across the filter or membrane portions by use of a controller to control one or more pumps [0012, 0080-0081].
It would have been further obvious to have also modified the method of ‘003 by utilizing such controlling as taught by Hill, in order to achieve fluid processing design goals, while providing sufficient shear rates for separation, as suggested in Hill at [0081].
Claim 32 further differs by explicitly requiring wherein at least 99 wt% of the second fluid phase present in the combined flow is removed from a product stream that is enriched in the first fluid phase.
However, publication ‘003 also discloses separation of the two-phase mixture into separate water and oil phases [0026], thus suggesting substantially complete removal of 2nd fluid phase from 1st fluid phase.
The wt% of second fluid phase, is deemed to be a results-effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized in the method disclosed by ‘003, by routine experimentation, as taught by Jovanovic, so as to optimize product purity relative to separation efficiency of the phases by selection of particular fluid mixtures for separation and by these channel design changes.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in Section 2144.05, parts I and II contains court decisions that have established precedence that particular parameter values or ranges may be insufficient to patentably distinguish where the prior art concerns overlapping, approaching and similar ranges and amounts of such parameters, absent a finding of criticality or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11-12, 15, 24-27, 29 and 31 are 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.
Claim 8 would respectively distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the combined flow further comprises a third fluid phase. Publication ‘003 is strictly directed to separation of an oil phase from a water phase of a combined or mixed liquid and does not suggest any third phase being separated.
Claims 15 and 31 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of their dependence on claim 8 which is distinguished and non-obvious.
Claims 11 and 12 would respectively distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the first porous medium portion and second porous medium portion are both hydrophilic with the first porous membrane portion being more hydrophilic than the second porous medium portion, or alternately where both medium portions are hydrophobic with the first portion being more hydrophobic than the second portion.
Publication ‘003 of record, and Hill, only teach first membrane portions being hydrophilic and second membrane portions being hydrophobic, rather than both being hydrophilic to different degrees or hydrophobic to different degrees. Jovanovic, as previously applied teaches a separator employing membranes aligned along channels where only wherein the first porous membrane portions are hydrophobic and second porous membrane portion(s) with first hydrophilic regions or portions and second hydrophobic portions [0010, 0064 and 0073 regarding the separator comprising dialyzers, hence dialysis porous membrane regions or portions], however not teaching where both of plural membranes are hydrophobic to different degrees or hydrophilic to different degrees.
Jablonski et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0298579 similarly teaches constructing a fluidic separator of a mixture of hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials, however does not suggest employing first and second membrane or other porous medium portions of different degrees of hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity.
Claim 24 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of the separator further comprising a spacer positioned between the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion. None of the prior art of record suggests such spacer.
Claim 25 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion are arranged in a roll such that at least a portion of a facial surface of each of the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion is curved. None of the prior art of record suggests such roll arrangement.
Claim 26 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the first porous medium portion and the second porous medium portion correspond to two different portions of the same porous medium. The currently applied prior art instead requires that the porous mediums utilized are separate, spaced apart and distinct.
Claim 27 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the same porous medium is folded such that the first porous medium portion faces the second porous medium portion. The currently applied prior art instead requires that the porous mediums utilized present a smooth facing surface relative to each other.
Claim 29 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of the method further comprising pre-wetting the first porous medium portion with the first fluid phase and/or pre-wetting the second porous medium portion with the second fluid phase. Publication ‘003 lacks any suggestion of such pre-wetting.
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.
The Office Action is made Final, since the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are based on information submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 07/21/2026. The MPEP at Section 706.07(a) states that where information is submitted
in an information disclosure statement during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with a fee, the examiner may use the information submitted, e.g., a printed publication or evidence of public use, and make the next Office action final whether or not the claims have been amended, provided that no other new ground of rejection which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims is introduced by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PGPUBS Document US 20150283479 is made of record for a device and method of separating liquid and gaseous phases, using membrane filters in series having hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
09/09/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights