DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 09/07/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 03/10/2021, in which claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 16-19, 30-32, 36-39 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07 SEPTEMBER 2023, 07 NOVEMBER 2025, 12 DECEMBER 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 17 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 17 recites the limitation “suitably Rz”. It is not clear what is meant by “suitably”, this is interpreted to mean “preferably” and is thus optional.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “A water treatment membrane device comprising a porous ceramic membrane according to claim 1.” However claim 1 is to a membrane device, it is thus not clear if this is claiming another membrane device comprising the membrane device of claim 1, or intends to import only the “porous ceramic member” of claim 1, which is not proper. Correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12, 16, 18-19, 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0008177 A1 (hereinafter “Yajima”) in view of US 2020/0215480 A1 (hereinafter “Roy”).
Regarding Claim 1 Yajima discloses a membrane device 1 comprising a porous ceramic member (porous ceramic body 9), wherein the porous ceramic member comprises a first support portion 31 operable to support an active layer 33 and further comprises a second support portion 30; Figs. 2, 3B, 4-6, [0002]-[0004], [0038]-[0045];
wherein the second support portion 30 has an average pore size from 5-25 µm [0047], and the intermediate layer has a pore diameter 1-10 µm [0055]; where the D₇₅ average pore size is not specifically provided, however it would have been obvious to provide a monodisperse pore size in order to provide tight particle filtration tolerances, which would thus have a D₇₅ average pore size the same as the average pore diameter, and/or to provide a D₇₅ average pore size within the same range of the disclosed average pore size so that the majority of the pores are in the disclosed size range; thus the second support portion 30 would have a higher D₇₅ average pore size than the D₇₅ average pore size of the first support portion 31; and
wherein the second support portion 30 has a porosity percentage of 25-50% [0048], and wherein the porous ceramic member has a tensile strength operable to withstand feed application pressure of 8 MPa [0018].
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Yajima does not disclose the second support portion comprises a lattice structure.
However Roy discloses a ceramic support for a membrane active layer which comprises a lattice structure (TPMS structures), which are “more efficient at transferring mass or heat, more compact, have lower capital cost, lower energy use from pumping fluids, or operate at higher temperature and pressure” then convention structures; [0004]-[0009], [0037], [0040], [0057]-[0059].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima by forming the porous ceramic member including the second support portion as a TPMS/lattice structure as disclosed by Roy because this invoels the simple substitution of known ceramic membrane supports to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful membrane device and because the TPMS/lattice structures are “more efficient at transferring mass or heat, more compact, have lower capital cost, lower energy use from pumping fluids, or operate at higher temperature and pressure” then convention structures.
Regarding Claim 2 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, further comprising an active layer 33 that extends across at least a part of the first support portion 31; Yajima Figs. 2, 3B, 4 (esp. 3B, [0038]-[0039].
Regarding Claim 4 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein the lattice structure may comprise a gyroid structure, a schwarz D structure, a schwarz P structure, a Weaire-Phelan structure; Roy Figs. 3a-3d, [0056]-[0059], Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 6 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, and with regard to the limitation “wherein the second support portion is operable to produce a substantially laminar flow towards a permeate collection point” this is considered to be dependent on the specific method of use of the membrane device, i.e. flow speed, fluid type, etc., and thus is not seen to define over the prior art cited because the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy may be operated in such a way that the lattice structure of the second support portion produces a substantially laminar flow towards a permeate collection point, where the permeate collection point would be the slit cells 4b; Yajima [0039], [0045], Figs. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 7 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, and with regard to the limitation “wherein the second support portion comprises turbulent flow paths” this is considered to be dependent on the specific method of use of the membrane device, i.e. flow speed, fluid type, etc., and thus is not seen to define over the prior art cited because the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy may be operated in such a way that the lattice structure of the second support portion provides turbulent flow paths. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 8 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein Roy discloses that the lattice may comprise regions of different lattice structure, i.e. non-uniform lattice structure, in order to dynamically control fluid flow in the lattice; Figs. 3a-c, 6a-b, 7, 8, [0050]-[0058].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy by forming the ceramic lattice structure to include regions of different lattice structure, i.e. non-uniform lattice structure, as disclosed by Roy in order to dynamically control fluid flow in the lattice.
Regarding Claim 12 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein the first support portion (i.e. layer 31) has an average pore size of from 1-10 µm, Yajima [0055]. where the D₇₅ average pore size is not specifically provided, however it would have been obvious to provide a monodisperse pore size in order to provide tight particle filtration tolerances, which would thus have a D₇₅ average pore size the same as the average pore diameter, and/or to provide a D₇₅ average pore size within the same range of the disclosed average pore size so that the majority of the pores are in the disclosed size range.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 16 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein the first support portion and the second support portion are disclosed adjacent as one support and thus are considered integrally formed; and further should they be seen to be separate, it would have been obvious to make them integral, as it has been held obvious to make integral items which are disclosed to be separate; see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding Claim 18 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein the membrane device comprises at least two feed flow channels 4a that are at least partially spaced by the porous ceramic member; Yajima Figs. 2, 3B, 4, [0038]-[0039].
Regarding Claim 19 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 18, wherein the at least two flow channels each comprise a channel wall formed at least partially of the first support portion, which may optionally comprise an active layer arranged at least partially thereover; Yajima Figs. 2, 3B, 4, [0038]-[0039].
Regarding Claim 36 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device of claim 1 which comprises porous ceramic member according to claim 1, which may be considered a water-treatment membrane device; Yajima [0002].
Regarding Claim 37 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device of claim 1, and where Roy discloses a method of preparing the support lattice of the membrane device wherein the support may be made by additive manufacturing, and which can include multiple layers of different pore structure; [0004]-[0009], [0040], [0052], [0057]-[0059], Figs. 5a-c, 7
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of preparing a membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy by additively manufacturing the porous ceramic member to produce the lattice structure of the second support portion and to form the first support portion as disclosed by Roy because additive manufacturing provides a way to form the complex lattice and because the first and second support portions are disclosed as adjacent ceramic layers in a singular solid support for the membrane active layer.
Regarding Claim 38 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein Roy discloses the additive manufacturing may be fused deposition modeling (i.e. a type of three-dimensional printing), direct metal laser sintering (i.e. selective laser sintering), and binder jet technique [0057]-[0058].
Regarding Claim 39 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein it would have been obvious to integrally form the first and second support portions by additive manufacturing because they are disclosed as adjacent layers in a solid support for the membrane active layer and are not disclosed to be separable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Roy further in view of Alberto Ortona, et al., Cellular ceramics produced by rapid prototyping and replication, Materials Letters, Volume 80, 2012, Pages 95-98 (hereinafter "Ortona").
Regarding Claim 3 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the lattice is at least partially shelled to form an internal hollow structure.
However Ortona discloses a method of making a ceramic lattice filtration structure, wherein the lattice is first 3D-printed in a sacrificial polymer structure that is then coated in a ceramic slurry and then calcined to solidify the ceramic and burn off the plastic, thus forming the filter to have a lattice is at least partially shelled to form an internal hollow structure (where the plastic was); Abstract, Sec. 2.2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy by forming the ceramic lattice structure by the process of Ortona such that the resulting ceramic lattice is at least partially shelled to form an internal hollow structure as disclosed by Ortona because this involves the simple substitution of known means to form ceramic lattice structures for filtration to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful ceramic lattice structures for filtration.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Roy as evidenced by US 2020/0001269 A1 (hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”).
Regarding Claim 9 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, wherein the second support portion (i.e. layer 30) has pore sizes from 5-25 µm [0047] and is thus considered macroporous. Wherein macroporous is defined in the art to mean greater than 0.5 micron, as evidenced by Nakagawa [0043].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Roy further in view of US 2019/0292062 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshimura”).
Regarding Claim 17 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the porous ceramic member has a surface roughness, suitably Rz, of from 0 to 1 µm.
However Yoshimura discloses a similar multichannel honey ceramic membrane filtration device, wherein the porous ceramic support 11 onto which an active layer 12 is provided, has a surface roughness of from 0.1-5 µm [0024]-[0029], Figs. 1 and 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy such that porous ceramic member has a surface roughness of from 0.1-5 µm as disclosed by Yoshimura because this involves the use or simple substitution of known packing densities for similar multichannel honey ceramic membrane filtration devices to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful membrane filtration device.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Roy further in view of US 2009/0107330 A1 (hereinafter “Gu”).
Regarding Claim 30 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the device has a membrane packing density, of ≥200 m²/m³.
However Gu discloses a similar multichannel honey ceramic membrane filtration device, where it is disclosed the membrane device may have a packing density of greater than 500 m²/m³, [0004], [0007] and [0035-[0036].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy by forming it have a membrane packing density, of greater than 500 m²/m³ as disclosed by Gu because this involves the use or simple substitution of known packing densities for similar multichannel honey ceramic membrane filtration devices to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful membrane filtration device.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Roy further in view of US 2021/0237004 A1 (hereinafter “Nakagawa”).
Regarding Claim 31-32 Yajima in view of Roy discloses the membrane device according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the active layer comprises a lamellar structure comprising at least two layers of two-dimensional material.
However Nakagawa discloses a composite separation membrane wherein a ceramic membrane support is covered in an active membrane layer, wherein the active layer comprises a lamellar structure comprising multiple layers of two-dimensional material including graphene oxide, and oxidized metal nanosheets; Abstract, [0013], [0018], [0032], [0041]-[0042], [0047], [0050], [0052], [0054], [0057]
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane device of Yajima in view of Roy by providing an active layer with a lamellar structure comprising multiple layers of two-dimensional material including graphene oxide, and oxidized metal nanosheets as disclosed by Nakagawa because this invoels the simple substation of know active layers used on a membrane support for fluid filtration to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful membrane filtration device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights