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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 5, claims 43-49,51-55,118-174 and 208-221, in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Note: Applicant’s election (see Remarks Filed 5/5/2026 asserts that new claims 175-207 and 219 belong to group 5. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Group 5 is drawn to an evaporation apparatus for evaporating liquid from solid and/or liquid waste. Claims 175-207 and 219 are drawn to a method for evaporating liquid from solid and/or liquid waste. Accordingly, Examiner finds said claims to be members of group 6. If, for the sake of argument, claims 175-207 and 219 are not members of group 6, they are nevertheless not members of group 5, as a claim must be an apparatus claim to be a member of group 5.
Claims 56, 175-207 and 218 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/23/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 43 recites “a skeletal frame for supporting one or both of: (i) the one or more evaporative membranes, (ii) one or more flaps, comprising one or more of a wicking layer, an odor- neutralizing layer, or both.”
“Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art,” (MPEP 2143.03).
Accordingly, in embodiments where the skeletal frame supports the one or more evaporative membranes, the one or more flaps are entirely optional, as are the subcomponents thereof (e.g. the wicking layer and odor neutralizing layer).
Accordingly, any language (including language in dependent claims) which further defines the one or more flaps and/or the subcomponents thereof, does not distinguish the claimed invention from a prior art device comprising a skeletal frame which supports one or more evaporative membranes.
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 120-124, 129, 130, 132, 133, 141, 150, 154, and 221 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.
Claim 120 recites the limitation "the delivery of moisture-containing media" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 121-124 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 120.
Claim 129 recites “including but not limited to hydrogel and silica gel” in lines 2-3. The phrase "including but not" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 130 recites “the one or more wicking layers are selectively hydrophilic or hydrophobic to control a direction of wicking or a release of moisture from the one or more wicking layers.”
The scope of “selectively hydrophilic or hydrophobic” is unclear. It appears to allude to wicking layer which can be changed at will from hydrophilic to hydrophobic and vice versa. However, such functionality seems unlikely, especially when considering the specific context in which the wicking layer is intended to be used (i.e. in a portable toilet).
Applicant should clarify the nature of the claimed selectivity, by amendment if necessary.
Claim 132 recites “wherein the one or more evaporative membranes are configured to collect water vapor.” It is unclear what configuration this requires.
Given that the evaporative membranes are understood to be hydrophilic membranes for pervaporation (at least in what Examiner understands to be the preferred embodiment(s)), it is unclear how said membranes could be described as collecting water vapor, as they are responsible for producing the water vapor.
For the purposes of examination, a membrane able to produce water vapor will be considered able to collect it in accordance with claim 132.
Applicant should amend claim 132 to clarify what is meant by the membranes collecting water vapor.
Claim 133 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 132
Claim 141 recites the limitation "the-pretreatment system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 141 recites the limitation " the one or more receptacles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 150 recites the limitation "the secondary media capture container" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 154 recites the limitation "the compositing of captured solid media" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 154 recites the limitation "the generation and capture of biogas" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 221 recites the limitation "the volume of captured media" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 43-45, 47, 51-54, 118-120, 124-139, 159, 210, 211, 220, and 221 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanderson (US 5,595,662).
With regard to claims 43 and 44: Sanderson teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid and/or solid media (abstract, Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), the apparatus comprising:
At least two evaporative membranes forming front and rear panels 14 and 16 of a membrane bag 12 for receiving the liquid and/or solid media and removing moisture therein by pervaporation (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4),
And a skeletal frame comprised of support rod 24 and/or porous spacing material 34 (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
The skeletal frame 24/34 configured to support the evaporative membranes and a plurality of flaps comprised of wicking layers, i.e. cloths laminated to the membranes (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
Note: The cloths can be alternatively characterized as part of the skeletal frame supporting the evaporative membranes as opposed flaps supported by said skeletal frame (See Column 4 Lines 40-45).
Note: The apparatus (the bag 12 thereof) is at least capable of containing solid media and evaporating liquid therefrom. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 45: The inside of the bag 12 formed from the membranes amounts to a first receptacle for receiving solid media and/or a second receptacle for receiving liquid media (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). The bag is at least capable of receiving solid media, e.g. dissolved solid material, suspended solid material, etc. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 47: The apparatus further comprises a door (water filling nozzle) 22 for providing access to the one or more evaporative membranes and/or the one or more flaps (cloths) (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 51: Claim 51 consists of further limitations on the scope of the flaps. Because the flaps are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 52: The membranes are made of may be made of polyether-block-polyamide (PEBAX) (Column 3 Lines 45-55).
With regard to claim 53: The membranes may be made of PEBAX (Column 3 Lines 45-55). Regardless of which PEBAX variant(s) is/are chosen to form the membranes, it is/they are, necessarily either uv-resistant or non-uv-resistant.
With regard to claim 54: The system further comprises a heater, i.e. the sun/sunlight, for providing additional heat to improve a rate of pervaporation through the evaporative membranes (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 118: Claim 118 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the wicking layers, being comprised of cloth (Columns 3 and 4), are necessarily configured to absorb and spread bulk moisture across a surface area of the one or more wicking layers. Though Examiner does not consider additional evidence necessary to support this functionality of the wicking layers, it is noted that the wicking layers may be comprised of cloth under the trade name “Coolmax” (Column 3 Lines 45-55, Column 4 Lines 20-30). It is well understood that “Coolmax” is a moisture wicking polyester fabric that will necessarily absorb and spread bulk moisture across a surface area of the one or more wicking layers (see: Leslie Tamura, "Designers sweat the details to let athletic clothes breathe". The Washington Post. 2010-08-10. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-09-08.)
With regard to claim 119: Claim 119 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 120: Claim 120 comprises further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
Nevertheless, the wicking layers (cloth) and the evaporative membranes are both encased in a shell (clear plastic sheet) 26 having one opening (water filling nozzle) 22 for delivery of moisture containing media to the evaporative membrane(s) (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). Said shell 26 necessarily provides some degree of protection to the wicking layers and the membranes. Said shell may be rigid (Column 6 lines 48-60).
With regard to claim 124: The system further comprises a heater, i.e. the sun/sunlight, for providing additional heat to improve a rate of pervaporation through the evaporative membranes (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 125: The one or more evaporative membranes comprise a bag with an opening (water filling nozzle) 22 for substrate and/or media delivery (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 126: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
Nevertheless, the wicking layers (cloths) and the evaporative membranes are in contact (Column 3 lines 40-45 and Column 4 Lines 20-36).
With regard to claim 127: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 128: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 129: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 130: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 131: The one or more evaporative membranes comprise hydrophilic evaporative membranes, wherein the hydrophilic evaporative membranes are non-porous, and allow selective passage of water molecules in vapor form while preventing passage of one or more of a suspended solid, a dissolved solid, a dissolved ion, salts, biological material or other pollutants (Columns 3 and 4, Column 2 Lines 15-27).
With regard to claims 132 and 133: The evaporative membranes are configured to collect water vapor in that they produce water vapor which is then collected and condensed, by active or passive means, on plastic sheets 26 for storage or reuse (Figures 1-4, and Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 134: At least heat from sunlight is applied to the evaporative membranes to increase the rate of moisture vapor transmission (Figures 1-4, and Columns 3 and 4). Said heat from sunlight is fairly characterized as being artificially applied, as solar heating of the membranes is achieved due to: 1) the bag 12 being placed in sunlight by human intervention, 2) the bag (which is an artificial construction) being colored black.
With regard to claim 135: The one or more evaporative membranes are configured to allow passage of at least liquid and/or gaseous source material containing no contaminants, i.e. said membranes allow for the passage of pure water and/or pure water vapor therethrough (Figures 1-4, and Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 136: The inside of the bag 12 formed from the membranes amounts to a first receptacle (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). Said receptacle is at least capable of receiving solid material, e.g. dissolved solid material, suspended solid material, etc. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 137: The inside of the bag 12 formed from the membranes amounts to a second receptacle configured and designated for receiving liquid material (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 138: The apparatus further comprises a door (water filling nozzle) 22 for providing access to the one or more evaporative membranes and/or the one or more flaps (cloths) (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 139: The inside of the bag 12 formed from the membranes amounts to a first receptacle for receiving solid media and/or a second receptacle for receiving liquid media (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). The bag is at least capable of receiving solid compounds, e.g. dissolved solid compounds, suspended solid compounds, etc. The bag also allows for the removal of such solid compounds, e.g. via the filling nozzle 22 (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 159: The membrane bag 12 is at least capable of functioning as a precipitation reactor/element which receives liquid media and generates solid compounds therefrom by evaporatively concentrating and thereby precipitating (and thus solidifying) dissolved solids in said liquid media (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 210: The cloths, being laminated to the evaporative material (column 3 Lines 40-45), can be fairly characterized as constituting a material which makes up a portion of the membrane, while at the same time optionally constituting a layer of the claimed flap(s) (which is/are merely optional).
The cloths may be may be comprised of cloth under the trade name “Coolmax” (Column 3 Lines 45-55, Column 4 Lines 20-30). It is well understood that “Coolmax” is a polyester fabric (see: Leslie Tamura, "Designers sweat the details to let athletic clothes breathe". The Washington Post. 2010-08-10. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-09-08.) Polyester fabric is made up of synthetic (polyester) fibers. Accordingly, the cloths can be characterized as being, or at least comprising an odor neutralizing material which makes up part of the membrane in accordance with the limitations of claim 210 (said claim allows for an embodiment wherein the odor-neutralizing material is “synthetic fibers”).
With regard to claim 211: Claim 211 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 220: Claim 220 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the case in Sanderson), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the wicking layers, being comprised of cloth (Columns 3 and 4), are necessarily configured to absorb and spread bulk moisture across a surface area of the one or more wicking layers, allowing for transfer of moisture to the membranes, and direct evaporation from the wicking layers retaining a suspended and/or dissolved solids and/or ions, salts, biological material, and/or other pollutants. Though Examiner does not consider additional evidence necessary to support this functionality of the wicking layers, it is noted that the wicking layers may be comprised of cloth under the trade name “Coolmax” (Column 3 Lines 45-55, Column 4 Lines 20-30). It is well understood that “Coolmax” is a moisture wicking polyester fabric that will necessarily absorb and spread bulk moisture across a surface area of the one or more wicking layers (see: Leslie Tamura, "Designers sweat the details to let athletic clothes breathe". The Washington Post. 2010-08-10. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-09-08.)
With regard to claim 221: The bag 12 formed from the membranes amounts to a media capture container for reducing the volume of captured media, wherein the media capture container at least in part comprises a non-hydrophobic material (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 213 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson.
With regard to claim 213: Sanderson does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of evaporative membrane to the wicking layer being in the range of 1:3 to 5:2.
However, the disclosure of Sanderson clearly points to the proportion of evaporative membrane to wicking layer being a result effective variable. To elaborate, Sanderson teaches that the wicking layer (cloth) serves as “a physical support to prevent the membrane from easily being damaged,” (column 3 Lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson demonstrates that the cloth should be used in an amount sufficient to support and protect the evaporative membrane from damage.
Sanderson also at least suggests that the use of the cloths reduces membrane flux (Column 5 Lines 30-45, especially lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson at least suggests that the cloth should be used in a moderated amount to avoid significantly reducing membrane flux.
"[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sanderson by optimizing the proportion of wicking layer (cloth) and evaporative membrane, i.e. such that the weight ratio of evaporative membrane to the wicking layer is in the range of 1:3 to 5:2, in order to provide the membrane with sufficient support and protection while avoiding an excessive decrease in membrane flux.
Claim(s) 208-212 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson in view of Neel et al. (US 5,334,314), hereafter referred to as Neel, and Borgren (US 5,198,076).
With regard to claims 208 and 210: Sanderson anticipates the limitations of claim 43 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The membranes are made of at least one evaporative material which may be polyether-block-polyamide (PEBAX) or polyurethane, which is a homopolymer (Column 3 Lines 45-55).
The cloths, being laminated to the evaporative material (column 3 Lines 40-45), can be fairly characterized as constituting a wicking material which makes up a portion of the membrane, while at the same time optionally constituting a wicking layer of the claimed flap(s) (which is/are merely optional).
Sanderson does not explicitly teach that the wicking material (cloths) of the membrane may be cotton, cellulose fiber, silica gel, hydrogels, desiccant paper, wood cellulose absorptive paper, and mixtures thereof.
However, the wicking material in Sanderson is cloth, which functions as a physical support layer (column 3 Lines 40-45).
Cotton is a notoriously well-known cloth, and its use as a support layer for pevaporative membranes is known in the art. For example, Neel teaches a composite pervaporation membrane (abstract, column 1 lines 5-10), said membrane having a supporting layer which may be made of cotton (Column 7 Lines 15-35).
Furthermore, cotton is understood to be effective as wicking material and has long been used as such in the evaporation art. For example, Borgren, drawn to a evaporative desalination device (abstract) uses sheets comprised of wicking material to absorb water by capillary action, wherein said wicking material may be cotton (Column 7 Line 60-Column 8 Line 5).
Of further note, cotton is understood to be comprised of cellulose fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sanderson in view of Neel and Borgen by replacing the cloth wicking material with cotton cloth (which is understood to be comprised of cellulose fibers), in order to obtain a membrane having a predictably functional wicking and supporting layer or layers.
Because the cloths in modified Sanderson are cotton, and thus are comprised of cellulose fiber, they can be alternatively characterized as being, or at least comprising an odor neutralizing material which makes up part of the membrane in accordance with the limitations of claim 210 (said claim allows for an embodiment wherein the odor-neutralizing material is “cellulose fiber”).
With regard to claim 208, 210, 211, and 212: Sanderson anticipates the limitations of claim 43 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The membranes are made of at least one evaporative material which may be polyether-block-polyamide (PEBAX) or polyurethane, which is a homopolymer (Column 3 Lines 45-55).
In embodiments, cloths may be laminated to both sides of the evaporative material (Column 4 Lines 24-28 and 35-36, column 5 Lines 29-35). The cloths, being laminated to the evaporative material (column 3 Lines 40-45), can be fairly characterized as constituting a wicking material which makes up a portion of the membrane, while at the same time optionally constituting a layer of the claimed flap(s) (which is/are merely optional).
Sanderson does not explicitly teach that the cloths of the membrane may be cotton, cellulose fiber, silica gel, hydrogels, desiccant paper, wood cellulose absorptive paper, and mixtures thereof.
However, the cloths in Sanderson function as a physical support layer (column 3 Lines 40-45).
Cotton is a notoriously well-known cloth, and its use as a support layer for pevaporative membranes is known in the art. For example, Neel teaches a composite pervaporation membrane (abstract, column 1 lines 5-10), said membrane having a supporting layer which may be made of cotton (Column 7 Lines 15-35).
Furthermore, cotton is understood to be effective as wicking material and has long been used as such in the evaporation art. For example, Borgren, drawn to a evaporative desalination device (abstract) uses sheets comprised of wicking material to absorb water by capillary action, wherein said wicking material may be cotton (Column 7 Line 60-Column 8 Line 5).
Of further note, cotton is understood to be comprised of cellulose fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sanderson in view of Neel and Borgen by replacing the cloth wicking material, i.e. the cloths laminated to both sides of the evaporative material, with cotton cloth (which is understood to be comprised of cellulose fibers), in order to obtain a membrane having a predictably functional wicking and supporting layers.
Because the cloths in modified Sanderson are cotton, and thus are comprised of cellulose fiber, one cloth (i.e. the cloth on one side of the evaporative material) can be fairly characterized as being a wicking material comprising cotton and cellulose fiber, while the other cloth (i.e. the cloth on the other side of the evaporative material) can be fairly characterized as being, or at least comprising, an odor neutralizing material which makes up part of the membrane in accordance with the limitations of claims 210 and 211 (said claims allow for embodiments wherein the odor-neutralizing material is “cellulose fiber”).
With regard to claim 209: Modified Sanderson does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of evaporative material to the wicking material being in the range of 1:3 to 5:2.
However, the disclosure of Sanderson clearly points to the proportion of evaporative material to wicking material (cloth) being a result effective variable. To elaborate, Sanderson teaches that the wicking material (cloth) serves as “a physical support to prevent the membrane from easily being damaged,” (column 3 Lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson demonstrates that the cloth should be used in an amount sufficient to support and protect the evaporative material from damage.
Sanderson also at least suggests that the use of the cloths reduces membrane flux (Column 5 Lines 30-45, especially lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson at least suggests that the cloth should be used in a moderated amount to avoid significantly reducing membrane flux.
"[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sanderson by optimizing the proportion of wicking material (cloth) and evaporative material used in forming the membrane, i.e. such that the weight ratio of evaporative material to the wicking material is in the range of 1:3 to 5:2, in order to provide the membrane with sufficient support and protection while avoiding an excessive decrease in membrane flux.
Claim(s) 43-49, 51, 118-123, 125-130, 136-141, 144-147, 151-155, 159, 163, 164, 166-173, 211, 220, and 221 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “An innovative toilet called the ‘iThrone’ shrinks and dehydrates poop — no plumbing or power required” (available at https://humanitariangrandchallenge.org/innovative-toilet-ithrone/), hereafter referred to as “the article”.
With regard to claims 43: The article teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid media (urine/”pee”) and solid media (feces/”poop”), the apparatus comprising: evaporative membranes for receiving the liquid and solid (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced and annotated below), the apparatus comprising:
A plurality of membranes, i.e. at least one corresponding to each of the “evaporative pee pouch” and the “evaporative poo pouch” (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced below).
Though it is not explicitly stated in the article, it is understood that each of the membranes is supported by a skeletal frame, said skeletal frames being components of the “evaporative pee pouch” the “evaporative poo pouch” which allow for said pouches to retain their shapes.
In the alternative, the illustration suggests the presence of skeletal frames which support said membranes. Furthermore, it is notoriously well-known in the art to support membranes with frames to provide stability.
In the event that it is not implicit in the article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus taught in said article by supporting each of the membranes with skeletal frames to provide stability to the membranes and allow the “evaporative pee pouch” the “evaporative poo pouch” to retain their shapes.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 44: The evaporative membranes of the two pouches amount to membrane bags for removing moisture in the liquid and solid media by pervaporation (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 45: The two pouches amount to first and second receptacles for receiving solid media and liquid media (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 46: The apparatus taught by the article further comprises a ventilation system comprising a plurality of vent cut-outs (pictured behind the toilet seat in the diagram of said apparatus) and a fan for active ventilation (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 47: The apparatus further comprises two hinged doors (the toilet lid and the door illustrated on the front of the apparatus) for providing access to the membranes (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claims 48, 47, 140, and 141: The diagram of the apparatus in said article at least suggests that the system comprises a receptacle (funnel illustrated in diagram) which receives the liquid media (urine) and solid media (feces), and a pretreatment system, i.e. some sort of separation device such as a prefilter, which receives the liquid media from the receptacle, pretreats the liquid media by separating it from the solid media, and subsequently supplies the liquid media via a tube or the like to be deposited on one of the evaporative membranes within one of the receptacles.
If, for the sake of argument, such a pretreatment system and receptacle are not necessarily present in the device taught by the article, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a pretreatment system and receptacle were necessary to separate the liquid media from the solid media so that said media may be diverted to their respective destinations. The illustration of the apparatus provided by the article would at least suggest such elements to one of ordinary skill.
If such a pretreatment system and receptacle are not necessarily present in the device taught by the article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said device by providing a receptacle (funnel of the like) which receives the liquid media (urine) and solid media (feces), and a pretreatment system (some sort of separation device) which receives the liquid media from the receptacle, pretreats the liquid media by separating it from the solid media, and subsequently supplies the liquid media via a tube or the like to be deposited on one of the evaporative membranes within one of the receptacles.
With regard to claim 51: Claim 51 consists of further limitations on the scope of the flaps. Because the flaps are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 118: Claim 118 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 119: Claim 119 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 120: The evaporative membranes are encased in a rigid shell for protection, the shell comprising an opening (toilet seat and associated hole) for delivery of moisture-containing media to the membranes (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
Claim 120 comprises further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 121: The apparatus further comprises ventilation holes in the rigid shell (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 122: The apparatus further comprises at least a powered fan for assisting airflow and ventilation (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 123: Claim 123 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 125: The one or more evaporative membranes comprise at least a bag with an opening in the top thereof for substrate or media delivery (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 126: Claim 126 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 127: Claim 127 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 128: Claim 128 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers and the odor-neutralizing layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 129: Claim 129 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claim 130: Claim 130 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of the article.
With regard to claims 136-137: The apparatus of the article comprises at least one receptacle configured/designated to receive solid media and at least two receptacles configured/designated to receive liquid media (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 138: The apparatus further comprises two doors (the toilet lid and the door illustrated on the front of the apparatus) for providing access to the membranes (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 139: At least one of the first receptacle or the second receptacle is configured to collect solid compounds and allow for the removal thereof from the apparatus (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 144: The apparatus comprises a solid media capture container (“poo pouch”) and a liquid media capture container (“pee pouch”) (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 145: The solid media capture container comprises a solid waste filter (the evaporative membrane positioned therein) and the liquid media capture container comprises a liquid waste filter (the evaporative membrane positioned therein) (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 146: The solid media capture container produces at least a gas effluent (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 147: The liquid media capture container produces at least a gas effluent (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claims 151 and 152: The effluent (water vapor) produced by the solid media capture container and/or the liquid media capture container originates from a source material, and has fewer impurities than the source material, which contains at least one impurity (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above). It is understood that the effluent (water vapor) will necessarily contain less than 50% by volume of the at least one impurity.
With regard to claim 153: The collected liquid media is at least partially treated (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 154 and 155: The solid media capture container is at least capable of facilitating composting of the solid media by confining it to a limited area, as is done in a compost pile. It is understood that composting involves conversion of solid media by living organisms. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 159: The “evaporative pee pouch” is at least capable of functioning as a precipitation reactor/element which receives liquid media (urine) and generates solid compounds therefrom by evaporatively concentrating and thereby precipitating (and thus solidifying) dissolved solids in said liquid media (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claims 163 and 164: The apparatus further comprises a second liquid media capture container (funnel illustrated in diagram) and an energy cell (“pee-powered battery”) operably attached to the apparatus and configured to receive at least a portion of media received by the second liquid media capture container and/or the solid media capture container and generate an electric current utilizing at least a portion of the received media without being detached from the apparatus.
With regard to claim 166: The diagram of the apparatus in said article at least suggests that the system comprises a receptacle (funnel illustrated in diagram) which receives the liquid media (urine) and solid media (feces), and a pretreatment system, i.e. some sort of separation device such as a prefilter, which receives the liquid media from the receptacle, pretreats the liquid media by separating it from the solid media, and subsequently supplies the liquid media via a tube or the like to be deposited on one of the evaporative membranes within one of the receptacles.
If, for the sake of argument, such a pretreatment system (e.g. a prefilter) and receptacle are not necessarily present in the device taught by the article, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a pretreatment system and receptacle were necessary to separate the liquid media from the solid media so that said media may be diverted to their respective destinations. The illustration of the apparatus provided by the article would at least suggest such elements to one of ordinary skill.
If such a pretreatment system and receptacle are not necessarily present in the device taught by the article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said device by providing a receptacle (funnel of the like) which receives the liquid media (urine) and solid media (feces), and a prefilter which receives the liquid media from the receptacle, pretreats the liquid media by separating it from the solid media, and subsequently supplies the liquid media via a tube or the like to be deposited on one of the evaporative membranes within one of the receptacles.
With regard to claim 167: The solid media capture container and the liquid media capture container each comprises at least one of the evaporative membranes, said membranes are necessarily formed of a hydrophilic material, a breathable material, and/or a wicking material, and wherein volume reduction of captured solid and/or liquid media is achieved by partial vaporization through the solid media capture container and/or liquid media capture container (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 168: The device comprises evaporative surfaces (i.e. the evaporative membranes) configured to contact captured media and capable of volume reduction of captured media and generating effluent in liquid or gas form containing a lower amount of impurities than the captured media, wherein the solid media capture container is impermeable to gas and liquid, and wherein the evaporative surface comprises at least one of a hydrophilic material, non-hydrophobic material, wicking material, or breathable material (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 169: The solid media capture container is necessarily configured to maximize exposure of liquid within the solid media capture container to an evaporative environment (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
In the alternative, considering that evaporation of liquid from the solid media is intended, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the solid media capture container so as to maximize the maximize exposure of liquid within the solid media capture container to an evaporative environment (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 170: The device is at least capable of operating such that volume reduction of collected media is achieved by evaporating liquid through the solid media capture container and by at least one of evaporating directly from the media or from the evaporative surface (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 171: The evaporative membranes amount to a plurality of surfaces for reducing a volume of media, wherein at least one of the surfaces is capable of being tunabley and/or intermittently submerged in the volume of media, ranging between partially submerged and fully submerged (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 172: The plurality of surfaces surface (the membranes) reduce the volume at least in part by pervaporation (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 173: The solid media capture container and/or the liquid media capture container further comprises a hydrophobic material (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 211: Claim 211 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking and odor-neutralizing layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 220: Claim 220 consists of further limitations on the scope of the wicking layers, which are subcomponents of the flaps. Because the flaps, and thus wicking layers, are optional elements (provided the skeletal frame supports the evaporative membrane(s), as is the implicit in or otherwise obvious over the article), said limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 221: The apparatus comprises multiple media capture containers for reducing volume of a captured media (whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above). Said containers necessarily comprise materials which are hydrophobic or non-hydrophobic.
Claim(s) 55, 143, 148-150, and 165 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article”.
With regard to claims 55 and 143: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 45 and 139 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
The article is silent to tracks, carriages, or guide rails to allow for easy unrestricted linear movement of the first and/or second receptacles.
However, the diagram of the apparatus provided in said article at least suggests that the first and second receptacles should be accessible through a doorway in the front of the apparatus. Furthermore, the diagram at least suggests that one would have to remove said receptacles to have true access to them. Especially the “pee pouch” would be extremely difficult to access without removing it, and the “poo pouch” in the process.
Tracks, carriages, and/or guide rails to allow for easy unrestricted linear movement of receptacles through a front access panel are notoriously well known in the art, and can be found, for example, in household draws and refrigerators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus taught in the article by adding tracks, carriages, and/or guide rails to allow for easy unrestricted linear movement of the first and second receptacles.
With regard to claims 148-150 and 165: The limitations of claims 148-150 and 165 describe portable toilet configurations which are obvious variations on the portable toilet configuration taught in the article.
Claim(s) 52, 53, 131, 132, 135, 174, and 210 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article”, in view of Sanderson.
With regard to claim 52, 53, and 131: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 45 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
Based on the article’s description of the membranes absorbing water from feces then releasing it as water vapor it is understood that the membranes are necessarily hydrophilic, and function by allowing selective passage of water molecules in vapor form will preventing passage of at least suspended solids, biological material, and other pollutants.
The article does not explicitly teach that the one or more evaporative membranes are non-porous or nano-porous. The article also does not explicitly teach that the membranes are UV resistant and/or non-UV resistant PEBAX.
However, the article provides little detail regarding the properties of said membranes. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated, and ultimately required to, select particular membranes suitable for use in pervaporation water in the solid and liquid material.
Non-porous pervaporation membranes are known in the art. For example, Sanderson teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid and/or solid media (abstract, Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), the apparatus comprising: At least two evaporative membranes forming front and rear panels 14 and 16 of a membrane bag 12 for receiving the liquid and/or solid media and removing moisture therein by pervaporation (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), and a skeletal frame comprised of support rod 24 and/or porous spacing material 34 (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), the skeletal frame 24/34 configured to support the evaporative membranes and a plurality of flaps comprised of wicking layers, i.e. cloths laminated to the membranes (Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4); wherein the evaporative membranes comprise hydrophilic evaporative membranes, wherein the hydrophilic evaporative membranes are non-porous, and allow selective passage of water molecules in vapor form while preventing passage of one or more of a suspended solid, a dissolved solid, a dissolved ion, salts, biological material or other pollutants (Columns 3 and 4, Column 2 Lines 15-27); and wherein the membranes may be made of PEBAX (Column 3 Lines 45-55). Regardless of which PEBAX variant(s) is/are chosen to form the membranes Sanderson, it is/they are, necessarily either uv-resistant or non-uv-resistant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught in the article in view of Sanderson by selecting non-porous PEBAX membranes (necessarily either UV resistant or non-UV resistant) for use as the evaporative membranes, in order to obtain a predictably functional device wherein the membranes function as intended to absorb and evaporate water from human waste.
With regard to claim 132: The evaporative membranes are configured to collect water vapor in that they produce water vapor which then collects (accumulates) to some extent in the shell surrounding the membranes and receptacles (The article: whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claim 135: The evaporative membranes are necessarily configured to allow passage of at least liquid and/or gaseous source material containing no contaminants, i.e. said membranes allow for the passage of pure water and/or pure water vapor therethrough (The article: whole article; diagram of apparatus found therein, reproduced above).
With regard to claims 174 and 210: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 43 and 144 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
Based on the article’s description of the membranes absorbing water from feces then releasing it as water vapor it is understood that the membranes are necessarily made of a hydrophilic evaporative material, wherein said membranes function by the principle of pervaporation.
The article does not explicitly teach that the membranes are made of: at least one evaporative material selected from the list of evaporative materials set forth in claim 210 and at least one odor-neutralizing material selected from the list of wicking materials set forth in claim 210.
However, the article provides little detail regarding the properties of said membranes. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated, and ultimately required to, select particular membranes suitable for use in pervaporation water in the solid and liquid material.
Sanderson teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid and/or solid media (abstract, Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), the apparatus comprising: a hydrophilic evaporative membrane comprising an evaporative material which may be polyether-block-polyamide (PEBAX) or polyurethane, which is a homopolymer (Columns 3 and 4, especially Column 3 Lines 45-55), and cloth supporting layers (Columns 3 and 4), wherein said cloth supporting layers may be laminated to one or both sides of the evaporative material (Column 4 Lines 24-28 and 35-36, column 5 Lines 29-35).
The cloth supporting layers may be comprised of cloth under the trade name “Coolmax” (Column 3 Lines 45-55, Column 4 Lines 20-30). It is well understood that “Coolmax” is a moisture wicking synthetic (polyester) fabric (see: Leslie Tamura, "Designers sweat the details to let athletic clothes breathe". The Washington Post. 2010-08-10. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-09-08.) It is well understood that polyester is a hydrophobic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Sanderson by selecting a membrane comprised of an evaporative material, i.e. PEBAX or polyurethane, laminated between two supporting layers of hydrophobic synthetic fibers, i.e. polyester fabric under the trade name “Coolmax”, for use as the evaporative membranes, in order to obtain a predictably functional device wherein the membranes function as intended to absorb and evaporate water from human waste.
Because the cloths in the membranes of the modified invention are made of a synthetic material, the cloths can be characterized as being, or at least comprising an odor neutralizing material which makes up part of the membrane in accordance with the limitations of claim 210 (said claim allows for an embodiment wherein the odor-neutralizing material is “synthetic fibers”).
By including the odor-neutralizing material (i.e. synthetic polyester fiber in the cloths) in the membrane of the modified invention, the solid and liquid media capture containers incorporate a hydrophobic material.
Claim(s) 54, 124, 142, 156, 160, and 161 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article” in view of Brose.
With regard to claims 54, 124, 142, 156: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 43, 120, 140, and 144 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
The article is silent to a heater for heating the membranes and increasing evaporation/pervaporation and volume reduction rates of the liquid and/or solid media.
However, it is notoriously well known in the art to heat evaporators, including evaporative membranes, to increase evaporation rate. For example, Brose teaches a device comprising membranes 14 which purify heated urine by pervaporation (Figure 1, Column 1 line 50-Column 2 Line 32). The fact that the urine is heated implies, or at least suggests, the presence of a heater which supplies heat to the membrane via the heated urine. It is understood that heating the urine increases the evaporation/pervaporation rate thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Brose by adding a heater for heating the membranes and thereby and increasing evaporation/pervaporation and volume reduction rates of the liquid and/or solid media.
With regard to claims 160 and 161: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 144 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
The article is silent to a condensation surface configured to facilitate a gas-to-liquid phase change of gas effluent (water vapor), wherein the condensation surface has an inner face configured to contact the gas effluent and be conditioned to a temperature less than the temperature of the gas effluent.
However, it is well known in the art to condense water vapor generated and collected from evaporation of a waste material. For example, Brose teaches a device comprising membranes 14 which purify urine by pervaporation, wherein water vapor generated by said urine is condensed on a condensation surface 28 via active means, i.e. cooling by chilled water or other fluid flowing in passage 29, for storage or reuse (Figure 1, Column 1 line 50-Column 2 Line 32). It is implicit that the inner face of the condensation surface upon which the water vapor condenses is conditioned to a temperature less than that of the water vapor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Brose by adding a condensation surface configured to facilitate a gas-to-liquid phase change of gas effluent (water vapor), wherein the condensation surface has an inner face configured to contact the gas effluent (water vapor) and be conditioned to a temperature less than the temperature of the gas effluent, in order to obtain purified water for storage or reuse.
Claim(s) 133 and 134 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article” in view of Sanderson as applied to claim 131 above, and in further view of Brose (US 3,385,769).
With regard to claim 133: The article is silent to condensing collected water vapor into a liquid for storage or reuse.
However, it is well known in the art to condense water vapor generated and collected from evaporation of a waste material. For example, Brose teaches a device comprising membranes 14 which purify urine by pervaporation, wherein water vapor generated by said urine is condensed on a condensation surface 28 via active means, i.e. cooling by chilled water or other fluid flowing in passage 29, for storage or reuse (Figure 1, Column 1 line 50-Column 2 Line 32). It is implicit that the inner face of the condensation surface upon which the water vapor condenses is conditioned to a temperature less than that of the water vapor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Brose by condensing collected water vapor, at least by active means, into a liquid for storage or reuse.
With regard to claim 134: The article is silent to a heater for heating the membranes and increasing evaporation/pervaporation rate of the liquid and/or solid media.
The article is silent to a heater for heating the membranes and increasing evaporation/pervaporation and volume reduction rates of the liquid and/or solid media.
However, it is notoriously well known in the art to heat evaporators, including evaporative membranes, to increase evaporation rate. For example, Brose teaches a device comprising membranes 14 which purify heated urine by pervaporation (Figure 1, Column 1 line 50-Column 2 Line 32). The fact that the urine is heated implies, or at least suggests, the presence of a heater which supplies heat to the membrane via the heated urine. It is understood that heating the urine increases the evaporation/pervaporation rate thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Brose by adding a heater for heating the membranes and thereby and increasing evaporation/pervaporation and volume reduction rates of the liquid and/or solid media.
Claim(s) 157 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article” in view of Lam et al. (US 9,113,755).
With regard to claim 157: The article is silent to a turbine using an air current external to the apparatus to provide at least one of internal air flow or energy. However, turbines which use external air current to provide internal air flow are notoriously well-known in the art, as is their use in toilet systems. For example, Lam teaches a toilet system having a turbine 10 which uses an external air current to provide internal air flow to the toilet system (abstract, Figure 4, Columns 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Lam by adding (or otherwise replacing the ventilation fan already present with) a turbine using an air current external to the apparatus to provide at least internal air flow, in order to obtain a predictably functional toilet system using a well-known means of ventilation.
Claim(s) 158 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article” in view of Inglin et al. (US 2011/0131716), hereafter referred to as Inglin.
With regard to claim 158: The article is silent to a turbine using a fluid flow of collected liquid media to provide at least one of internal air flow or energy. However, turbines which use fluid flow of collected liquid media current to provide internal air flow are notoriously well-known in the art, as is their use in toilet systems. For example, Inglin teaches a toilet system having a turbine which uses fluid flow of collected liquid media to provide at least energy to the toilet system (abstract, Figure 4, Columns 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Inglin by adding turbine which uses fluid flow of collected liquid media to provide at least energy to the toilet system, in order to obtain toilet system which harvests energy from a flow of collected liquid media.
Claim(s) 162 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article” in view of Brose as applied to claim 160 above, and in further view of LaViolette (US 2003/0033805).
With regard to claim 162: The article and Brose do not explicitly teach a condensation surface comprised of at least one of a superhydrophobic material, superhydrophobic coating, omniphobic material, omniphobic coating, or textured surface.
However, hydrophobic condensation surfaces are known in the art, and it is understood that they have certain advantages. For example, LaViolette, drawn to a water distillation device (abstract) teaches the following regarding hydrophobic condensation surfaces:
Teflon films such as FEP, Tefzel, or PVF have the advantage that they are hydrophobic so that water condenses on their surface in droplets rather than as a smooth film. Research has shown that dropwise condensation enhances the heat transfer process. If the film partition between the lower and upper air ducts is not inherently hydrophobic, it is advisable to apply a light-transmitting hydrophobic coating to the upper surface of the tube's lower film layer 10 to encourage droplet condensation. Also a light-transmitting hydrophilic coating may be applied to the undersides of both the lower film layer 10 and upper film layer 11 to discourage droplet formation and upward heat loss there.
(paragraph [0044]).
To the extent that there is any clear distinction between a superhydrophobic material and one which is merely hydrophobic, the use of a superhydrophobic material and/or coating for forming a condensation surface would be regarded as obvious variation on the use of a merely hydrophobic material. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that use of superhydrophobic materials as condensation surfaces would produce at least the same benefits as merely hydrophobic materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of LaViolette by configuring the condensation surface to be comprised of at least one of superhydrophobic material or superhydrophobic coating, in order to promote dropwise condensation and thereby enhance heat transfer.
Claim(s) 208-213 and 218 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article”, in view of Sanderson, Neel, and Borgren.
With regard to claims 208, 210, and 212: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 43 and 144 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
Based on the article’s description of the membranes absorbing water from feces then releasing it as water vapor it is understood that the membranes are necessarily made of a hydrophilic evaporative material, wherein said membranes function by the principle of pervaporation.
The article does not explicitly teach that the membranes are made of:
1) at least one evaporative material selected from the list of evaporative materials set forth in claims 208, 210, and 212;
2) at least one wicking material selected from the list of wicking materials set forth in claims 208 and 212; and
3) at least one odor-neutralizing material selected from the list of wicking materials set forth in claims 210 and 212.
However, the article provides little detail regarding the properties of said membranes. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated, and ultimately required to, select particular membranes suitable for use in pervaporation water in the solid and liquid material.
Sanderson teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid and/or solid media (abstract, Figures 1-4, Columns 3 and 4), the apparatus comprising: a hydrophilic evaporative membrane comprising an evaporative material which may be polyether-block-polyamide (PEBAX) or polyurethane, which is a homopolymer (Columns 3 and 4, especially Column 3 Lines 45-55), and a plurality of cloth supporting layers (Columns 3 and 4), wherein said cloth supporting layers may be be laminated to both sides of the evaporative material (Column 4 Lines 24-28 and 35-36, column 5 Lines 29-35). The cloths, being laminated to the evaporative material (column 3 Lines 40-45), can be fairly characterized as constituting a wicking material which makes up a portion of the membrane.
Sanderson does not explicitly teach that the cloths of the membrane may be cotton, cellulose fiber, silica gel, hydrogels, desiccant paper, wood cellulose absorptive paper, and mixtures thereof.
However, the cloths in Sanderson function as a physical support layer (column 3 Lines 40-45).
Cotton is a notoriously well-known cloth, and its use as a support layer for pevaporative membranes is known in the art. For example, Neel teaches a composite pervaporation membrane (abstract, column 1 lines 5-10), said membrane having a supporting layer which may be made of cotton (Column 7 Lines 15-35).
Furthermore, cotton is understood to be effective as wicking material and has long been used as such in the evaporation art. For example, Borgren, drawn to a evaporative desalination device (abstract) uses sheets comprised of wicking material to absorb water by capillary action, wherein said wicking material may be cotton (Column 7 Line 60-Column 8 Line 5).
Of further note, cotton is understood to be comprised of cellulose fibers.
Thus, when the disclosures of Sanderson, Neel, and Borgen, are considered in combination, they would suggest a membrane comprised of an evaporative material, i.e. PEBAX or polyurethane, laminated between two supporting layers of wicking material, i.e. cotton cloth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Sanderson, Neel, and Borgen by selecting a membrane comprised of an evaporative material, i.e. PEBAX or polyurethane, laminated between two supporting layers of wicking material, i.e. cotton cloth, for use as the evaporative membranes, in order to obtain a predictably functional device wherein the membranes function as intended to absorb and evaporate water from human waste.
Because the cloths in such a membrane are cotton, and thus are comprised of cellulose fiber, one cloth (i.e. the cloth on one side of the evaporative material) can be fairly characterized as being a wicking material comprising cotton and cellulose fiber, while the other cloth (i.e. the cloth on the other side of the evaporative material) can be fairly characterized as being, or at least comprising, an odor neutralizing material which makes up part of the membrane in accordance with the limitations of claims 210 and 211 (said claims allow for embodiments wherein the odor-neutralizing material is “cellulose fiber”).
With regard to claim 209: The article is silent to a weight ratio of evaporative material to the wicking material being in the range of 1:3 to 5:2.
However, the disclosure of Sanderson clearly points to the proportion of evaporative material to wicking material (cloth) being a result effective variable. To elaborate, Sanderson teaches that the wicking material (cloth) serves as “a physical support to prevent the membrane from easily being damaged,” (column 3 Lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson demonstrates that the cloth should be used in an amount sufficient to support and protect the evaporative material from damage.
Sanderson also at least suggests that the use of the cloths reduces membrane flux (Column 5 Lines 30-45, especially lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson at least suggests that the cloth should be used in a moderated amount to avoid significantly reducing membrane flux.
"[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention described in the article in view of Sanderson by optimizing the proportion of wicking material (cloth) and evaporative material used in forming the membrane, i.e. such that the weight ratio of evaporative material to the wicking material is in the range of 1:3 to 5:2, in order to provide the membrane with sufficient support and protection while avoiding an excessive decrease in membrane flux.
With regard to claim 211: The wicking material and odor-neutralizing material in the modified invention described in the rejections of claims 208, 210, and 212 above can be alternatively characterized as flap layers as opposed to membrane materials.
With regard to claim 213: The wicking material and odor-neutralizing material in the modified invention described in the rejections of claims 208, 210, and 212 above can be alternatively characterized as flap layers as opposed to membrane materials.
The article is silent to a weight ratio of evaporative material to the wicking material being in the range of 1:3 to 5:2.
However, the disclosure of Sanderson clearly points to the proportion of evaporative membrane to wicking layer being a result effective variable. To elaborate, Sanderson teaches that the wicking layer (cloth) serves as “a physical support to prevent the membrane from easily being damaged,” (column 3 Lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson demonstrates that the cloth should be used in an amount sufficient to support and protect the evaporative membrane from damage.
Sanderson also at least suggests that the use of the cloths reduces membrane flux (Column 5 Lines 30-45, especially lines 40-45). Thus, Sanderson at least suggests that the cloth should be used in a moderated amount to avoid significantly reducing membrane flux.
"[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention described in the article in view of Sanderson by optimizing the proportion of wicking layer (cloth) and evaporative membrane, i.e. such that the weight ratio of evaporative membrane to the wicking layer is in the range of 1:3 to 5:2, in order to provide the membrane with sufficient support and protection while avoiding an excessive decrease in membrane flux.
With regard to claim 218: By including the odor-neutralizing material (i.e. cellulose fibers in at least one of the cotton cloths) in the membrane of the modified invention described in the rejections of claims 208, 210, and 212, the solid and liquid media capture containers incorporate an odor-reduction component.
Claim(s) 214 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article”, in view of Williams (US 2024/0228334).
With regard to claim 214: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 43 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
The article is silent to a membrane distillation module for receiving collected liquid media and producing a liquid effluent, the module comprising a feed side, a distillate side, and at least one distillation membrane separating the feed and distillate sides, the module configured to provide a temperature differential between the feed side and distillate side.
However, the invention described in the article is a toilet system. It is known in the art to provide toilet systems with membrane distillation modules like the one described in claim 214. For example, Williams teaches a toilet system having a membrane distillation module 21 like that of the claim (Figure 2, paragraph [0069]), wherein said membrane distillation module is used to separate non-volatile components, such as ions, macro-molecules and colloidal particles from a contaminated liquid (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Williams by adding a membrane distillation module like the one described in claim 214, in order to obtain a system having effective means for separating non-volatile components, such as ions, macro-molecules and colloidal particles from contaminated liquid, i.e. urine.
Regarding the filing date of Williams, it is acknowledged that the effective filing date of Williams (9/7/2022) is later than the filing dates (03/10/2021) of two of the provisional Applications to which priority is claimed (63/159,232 and 63/159,255). However, having conducted a brief review of said provisional applications, Examiner finds no support therein for the invention of claim 214 (i.e. there is no support for a system including a membrane distillation module.) “If the application properly claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a provisional application, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is the filing date of the provisional application for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the provisional application,” (MPEP 2152.01; emphasis added). Because the provisional applications in question do not fully support claim 214, the effective filing date of claim 214 is later than that of Williams. Accordingly, Williams qualifies as prior art with respect to claim 214 under 102(a)(2).
Claim(s) 43 and 214 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greatorex et al. (US 3,608,610), hereafter referred to as Greatorex.
With regard to claims 43 and 214: Greatorex teaches an apparatus for evaporative containment of liquid wastes media, comprising: a plurality of evaporative membranes 10 for receiving the liquid media; and a skeletal frame comprised at least of spacer-frame members 13 and 14 for supporting the plurality of evaporative membranes 10 (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3-5).
Said apparatus amounts to a membrane distillation module like that described in claim 214.
Claim(s) 215-217 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “the article”, in view of Hol (US 2023/0233040).
With regard to claims 215 and 216: The article anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claims 43 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
The article sis silent to a filtration cell which comprises an ultrafiltration membrane as described in claims 215 and 216.
However, the invention described in the article is a toilet system. It is known in the art to provide toilet systems with filtration cells like the one described in claims 215 and 216. For example, Hol teaches a toilet system having a filtration cell comprising an ultrafiltration membrane like that of the claims (Figures 1, 2, and 3C, paragraph [0046]), wherein said filtration cell is used to filter contaminated liquid such as urine to produce an effluent that is mainly water (Figure 3C, paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention described in the article in view of Hol by adding a filtration cell which comprises an ultrafiltration membrane as described in claims 215 and 216, in order to obtain a system having effective means for filtering contaminated liquid, i.e. urine, to produce a effluent that is mainly water.
With regard to claim 217: The language of claim 217 is entirely concerned with the composition of a material worked upon by the claimed invention (i.e. the liquid media). Indeed, whether or not the permeate described in said claim is produced depends on the nature of the liquid media and the impurity therein. Apparatus claims are not limited by inclusion of material worked upon (See MPEP 2115). Therefore, the language of claim 217 does not limit the claimed invention.
For the sake of argument, if the language of claim 217 is at all more than a description of material worked upon, then it is at most merely a statement regarding the intended use/manner of operating the claimed invention, said statement framed in terms of the material worked upon. Statements regarding intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish a claimed invention from a prior art device capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (See MPEP 2114). In the modified invention, the filtration cell comprising the ultrafiltration membrane is necessarily capable of processing some sort of impurity containing liquid media to produce a permeate having less than 5% of the at least one impurity by volume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights