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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 12-15 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that prosecution of all current claims simultaneously will not present a serious burden on the examiner because the groups of claims are linked by the concept of a leaf assembly used in water treatment. This is not found persuasive because as indicated in the restriction requirement office action there is a lack of unity because the groups do not share technical feature of leaf or mesh. The invention of group III (claims 12-15) is directed to an apparaus/system that can be used in assembling a leaf for filtration, however, the claims do not require a leaf.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/10/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. The labels “Figure 9a” and “Figure 9b” are not oriented in the same direction as the view.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numeral “33” indicated in Figure 9b is not present in the specification.
Figures 9a and 9b includes shaded areas in the background resulting in hiding the lead lines of numerals making it unclear which parts of the figures are being referred to by the numerals 314, 318, 330, 331, and 335. Refer 37 CFR 1.84(l), (m) and (q).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites two components, “a” and “b”, of a system. After the phrase “a glue applicator;”, there should be “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein said glue applicator applies at least one glue layer in about one second to about 5 seconds” is indefinite because it recites method steps of using the apparatus of claim 12. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “wherein said system assembles a leaf every 30 to 60 seconds” is indefinite because it recites method steps of using the apparatus of claim 12. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al. (JP 2002-102659, refer English translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 12, Kanamori teaches a system (refer fig. 1) (the limitation “for assembling a leaf for filtration” is intended use of the system/apparatus without imparting additional structure), comprising:
a. a glue application station (refer the station with adhesive application gun 27); said glue application station comprising: a glue applicator (27); and
b. a leaf fold station (refer station with folding means 15); said leaf fold station comprising: a gripper pin (refer 13a).
Kanamori does not teach that the leaf folding station comprising a pair of gripper pins. However, court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (refer In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Providing one gripper pin or a plurality of gripper pins in the leaf folding station of Kanamori would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Kanamori teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Kanamori further teaches that the fold station further comprises at least one crimping piston and at least one crimping block (refer fig. 10 disclosing creasing means 65 comprising cylinder devices 68,69 facilitating film press 66 to move downward to press membrane fold).
Regarding claim 14, Kanamori teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Kanamori teaches the system comprising a glue applicator (27). Kanamori further teaches that the adhesive application gun 27 is controlled by a scanning unit 30 capable of moving the gun 27 three-dimensionally (refer page 5/last paragraph). Optimizing speed of glue applicator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum application of glue. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al. (JP 2002-102659, refer English translation for claim mapping), in view of Adams et al. (CN1627978A, refer English translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 14, Kanamori teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Kanamori teaches the system comprising a glue applicator (27). Kanamori further teaches that the adhesive application gun 27 is controlled by a scanning unit 30 capable of moving the gun 27 three-dimensionally (refer page 5/last paragraph). Optimizing speed of glue applicator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum application of glue. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Adams disclosing glue application in manufacturing of filter screen where glue patterns can be controlled by appropriate sieve or net moving speed and/or the running speed and/or direction of appropriate control nozzle (Refer page 14-2nd paragraph). Adams establishes that net moving speed and/or the running speed and/or direction of appropriate control nozzle can be adjusted/optimized for glue patterns. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Optimizing speed of glue applicator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum application of glue.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al. (JP 2002-102659, refer English translation for claim mapping), in view of Jeong et al. (KR 102110073, refer English translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 15, Kanamori teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Kanamori does not teach that the system assembles a leaf every 30 to 60 seconds.
Jeong teaches an automated manufacturing system and method for a reverse osmosis filter module. To this end after cutting the base tricot fabric provided in-line, a leaf element modularized with a reverse osmosis membrane, space, and tricoat is stacked at the correct position on the base tricot, and a series of processes such as adhesive application, core tube rolling and subsequent leaf element stacking is automatically, interlinkedly performed (refer abstract). Jeong discloses that the automated system provides consistent quality, increase quality, minimize facility space, increase productivity, and increase staff efficiency (Refer page 2, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to automate the system of Kanamori to increase productivity as taught by Jeong. Optimizing the automated system to increase leaf production rate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20160037584 teaches a device and a system for manufacturing leaf element by interposing a mesh member (or a spacer) between reverse osmosis membrane sheets and automatically folding the reverse osmosis membrane sheets, and can improve productivity in a production process of the reverse osmosis filter module by automatically rolling and winding a carrier where the leaf element is stacked in order (abstract).
KR 102124211 teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a reverse osmosis filter module. The apparatus includes: a pre-alignment part configured to feed leaves in the form of sheets supplied from the outside and arrange the leaves on the front, rear, left, and right sides; an automatic stack part configured to support a tricot stack body including a plurality sheets of tricots, receive the leaves delivered from the pre-alignment part and insert the received leaf between the tricots, and form a stack body of a structure in which the tricots and the leaves are alternately stacked; and a rolling part configured to feed the stack body stacked in the automatic stack pat and wind the stack body on a hollow pipe type core tube (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 1777