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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (PRO 63/411,079, filed 28 September 2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The claim set filed on 06 February 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to Claim 55, the Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 49, 50, and 68; 53-56; and 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) in view of LOKARE et al. (US 2023/0001355 A1), Applicant’s arguments (pg. 17-18) are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) with evidentiary support from WQA (Reverse Osmosis (RO) Fact Sheet. 2019. Water Quality Association. <URL: https://wqa.org/resources/reverse-osmosis-ro/>) and for Claim(s) 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) in view of WRASIDLO (88/02653 A1). Claims 49, 50, 53, 54, and 68 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding the “Claim Interpretation”, Applicant has disagreed with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims (pg. 11-15), specifically over the interpretation of the terms “Salt Passage Percentage” (pg. 11-13) and “Solute Enhancement Factor and Mass Flow Ratio” (pg. 13-15). Applicant argues “the salt passage percentage under standard conditions is an intrinsic property of the membrane separator” and further that “The exact measurement conditions (standard conditions) are specified in the term "salt passage at standard conditions," and so each membrane has a well defined salt passage at standard conditions independent of how the membrane is used” (pg. 12, par. 1). Applicant concludes that “Accordingly, the term "salt passage at standard conditions" does not refer to and is not affected by material/articles worked upon or processes being performed, and therefore the term should be given patentable weight” (pg. 13, par. 1).
Similarly, regarding the “Solute Enhancement Factor and Mass Flow Ratio”, Applicant argues “The solute enhancement factor and mass flow ratio features of the claims are associated with the structural/composition properties of the membrane separator or combination of membrane separators” (pg. 13, par. 3) and provides a number of analogous situations for the Office to consider (pg. 14-15). Applicant concludes that “these features of solute enhancement factor and mass flow ratio (and also salt passage percentage at standard conditions discussed above) should be given patentable weight” (pg. 15, par. 2).
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 35-48, 51, 52, 57-59, and 63-67 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1), Applicant argues that the Office in not giving patentable weight to the above discussed features has “not demonstrated the presence of each feature of claims 35-39 in the cited reference, and therefore the anticipation rejection should be withdrawn” (pg .17, par. 1). Applicant further argues that the remaining dependent claims are therefore also patentable over WARSINGER for the same reasons. (pg. 17, par. 1).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instantly claimed inventions (Claims 35-38) are directed toward systems comprising membrane separators having semi-permeable membranes with retentate and permeate sides such that the retentate side of a first membrane separator is fluidically connected to the retentate side of a second membrane separator. Such serial membrane modules with such fluidic connections are known and disclosed by WARSINGER as summarized in the following prior art rejection. The limitations requiring that the first and second membrane separators having different salt passage percentages based on ASTM D4516-19a and solute enhancement factors based on certain conditions under which the system is operated, are directed toward properties of the membrane separators. The Examiner acknowledges that the recitation of measurement techniques is common for characterizing properties of elements as argued by Applicant (pg. 14, par. 1); however, Applicant has required properties that are themselves defined by specific measurement techniques. Because the prior art has disclosed all structural limitations of the claimed product except for these specific claimed product properties, which the Examiner cannot determine whether the prior art inherently possesses, a case of prima facie obviousness has been established. The burden of proof shifts to the Applicant to show that the prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claimed inherent properties (In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980)). Because WARSINGER has disclosed the structural and functional features of the claimed invention, it is expected that any additional claimed properties are necessarily present, including the claimed salt passage percentage and the solute enhancement factors. Applicant has merely disagreed with the Office’s interpretation of such limitations and has not shown or proven that the prior art membranes do not possess such properties. As such, the rejections of Claim(s) 35-48, 51, 52, 57-59, and 63-67 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) remain.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant cites the term “salt passage percentage”. The term “salt passage percentage” is defined by Applicant in the Specification (pg. 33, lines 22-31):
The salt passage percentage at standard conditions of each membrane separator may be chosen based on any of a variety of design criteria such as desired purity of permeate, desired hydraulic pressure to be used, and nature of incoming influent (e.g., solute type and/or concentration of incoming influent). The salt passage percentage at standard conditions of a membrane separator is an intrinsic property of the separator based on the quantity of salt, as a percentage, which passes through the semi-permeable membrane(s) from the retentate side to the permeate side of the membrane separator under defined reference conditions. The salt passage percentage at standard conditions of a membrane separator can be determined using the standardized test described in ASTM D4516-19a. (Emphases added)
As noted, the factors that determine the salt passage percentage of a membrane separator are directed solely toward materials/articles worked upon (i.e., “desired purity of permeate”, “nature of incoming influent”) or manners or methods by which the claimed system is used (i.e., “desired hydraulic pressure”, quantity of salt allowed to pass through). Later passages similarly reflect how the use of the system determines “salt passage percentage” (e.g., pg. 34 line 1 to pg. 35, line 11). Thus, limitations claiming “salt passage percentage” have no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Applicant cites the term “solute enhancement factor”. The term “solute enhancement factor” is defined by Applicant in the Specification (pg. 40, line 26-pg. 41, line 18):
It has been determined in the context of this disclosure that solute enhancement factor (CFc), which is a parameter derived from a combination of rejection and recovery, can be used as a basis for arranging a membrane separator system. Solute enhancement factor can either be applied to a single membrane or to a membrane separator (e.g., a membrane separator comprising an array of membranes). The following equation for CFc can be derived from mass balance of a membrane system:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Equation [7], the recovery and rejection (R) are divided by 100 because they are defined as percentages. As an illustrative example, if a recovery is 50% and the rejection is R=80%, then the solute enhancement factor would be 1 + ((50/100)/(1-(50/100))*(80/100) = 1 + (0.5/0.5)*0.8 = 1.8.
Accordingly, when operating a system comprising a plurality of membrane separators (e.g., comprising a first membrane separator, a second membrane separator, a third membrane separator), the solute enhancement factor can be measured for each membrane separator. It has been determined in the context of this disclosure that it can be desirable for a system to have a high average solute enhancement factor. In other words, it has been determined that it can be desirable for the arithmetic mean of the solute enhancement factors of each membrane separators to be relatively high. High solute enhancement factors are associated with efficient liquid separation and/or solute concentration enhancement on a per stage basis, which can in turn permit lower capital and/or operational expenditures. In some instances, a relatively high average solute enhancement factor can be facilitated by use of varying membrane permeabilities (and salt passage percentages at standard conditions) for different membrane separators of the system. (Emphases added)
As noted, the factors that determine the “solute enhancement factor” of a membrane separator are directed toward materials/articles worked upon (i.e., a salt feed that is being treated by the claimed membrane/system) and manners and methods by which the claimed system is used (i.e., “derived from a combination of rejection and recovery”, “when operating a system… the solute enhancement factor can be measured”). Even further, the cited Equation 7 for calculating “solute enhancement factor” is solely dependent on “recovery” and “rejection”, i.e., performance indicators of the claimed membrane separators. Thus, limitations claiming “solute enhancement factor” have no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Similarly, Applicant cites the term “mass flow ratio”. The term “mass flow ratio” is defined by Applicant in the Specification (pg. 46, line 23-pg. 47, line 16):
It has also been determined in the context of this disclosure that mass flow ratio (CFM), which is a parameter derived from the measured recovery of a membrane separator, can be used to arrange a membrane separator system. Mass flow ratio can either be applied to a single membrane or to a membrane separator (e.g., a membrane separator comprising an array of membranes). The following equation for CFM can be derived from mass balance of a membrane system:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Equation [8], the recovery is divided by 100 because recovery is defined as a percentage. As an illustrative example, if a recovery is 50%, then the mass flow ratio would be 1 + ((50/100)/(1-(50/100)) = 1 + (0.5/0.5) = 2.0.
Accordingly, when operating a system comprising a plurality of membrane separators (e.g., comprising a first membrane separator, a second membrane separator, a third membrane separator), the mass flow ratio can be measured for each membrane separator. It has been determined in the context of this disclosure that it can be desirable for a system to have a high average mass flow ratio. In other words, it has been determined that it can be desirable for the arithmetic average of the mass flow ratios of each membrane separators to be relatively high. High mass flow ratios are associated with efficient solute concentration in retentate inlet streams by mass on a per stage basis, which, like in the case of solute enhancement factor described above, can in turn permit lower capital and/or operational expenditures. In some instances, a relatively high average mass flow ratio can be facilitated by use of varying membrane permeabilities (and salt passage percentages at standard conditions) for different membrane separators of the system. (Emphases added)
As noted, the factors that determine the “mass flow ratio” of a membrane separator are directed toward materials/articles worked upon (i.e., a salt feed that is being treated by the claimed membrane/system) and manners and methods by which the claimed system is used (i.e., “derived from the measured recovery of a membrane separator”, “when operating a system… the mass flow ratio can be measured”). Even further, the cited Equation 8 for calculating “mass flow ratio” is solely dependent on “recovery”, i.e., a performance indicator of the claimed membrane separators. Thus, limitations claiming “mass flow ratio” have no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 35-48, 51, 52, 57-59, and 63-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1).
Regarding Claims 35-40, WARSINGER discloses a pressure-driven membrane liquid separation apparatus (i.e., a system; abstract). As shown in FIG. 1 and described in p0043, WARSINGER discloses a plurality of multi-stage reverse osmosis modules having a retentate side 22 and a permeate side 24 (i.e., a plurality of membrane separators; a first membrane separator comprising at least one semi-permeable membrane defining a retentate side… and a permeate side; a second membrane separator comprising at least one semi-permeable membrane defining a retentate side… and a permeate side) wherein the retentate from early stage modules 16 (left four modules) is fed as into the retentate of later-stage modules 16 via line 28 (middle two; then right module; i.e., wherein the retentate side of the first membrane separator is fluidically connected to the retentate side of the second membrane separator).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitations “the first membrane separator has a different salt passage percentage at standard conditions than the second membrane separator, wherein the salt passage percentage at standard conditions is determined using ASTM D4516-19a” (Claims 35-38) and “for an initial feed stream containing NaCl as the only solute and water as the only liquid, and having a salinity of 7%, at a temperature of 298 K, each of the plurality of membrane separators has a solute enhancement factor, and the arithmetic average of the solute enhancement factors of the plurality of membrane separators is greater than or equal to 1.005” (Claims 35 and 39), “for an initial feed stream containing NaCl as the only solute and water as the only liquid, and having a salinity of 20%, at a temperature of 298 K, each of the plurality of membrane separators has a solute enhancement factor, and the arithmetic average of the solute enhancement factors of the plurality of membrane separators is greater than or equal to 1.005” (Claims 36 and 40), “for an initial feed stream containing NaCl as the only solute and water as the only liquid, and having a salinity of 7%, at a temperature of 298 K, each of the plurality of membrane separator has a mass flow ratio, and the arithmetic average of the mass flow ratios of the plurality of membrane separators is greater than or equal to 1.005” (Claims 37 and 39), and “for an initial feed stream containing NaCl as the only solute and water as the only liquid, and having a salinity of 20%, at a temperature of 298 K, each of the plurality of membrane separator has a mass flow ratio, and the arithmetic average of the mass flow ratios of the plurality of membrane separators is greater than or equal to 1.005” (Claims 38 and 40) are directed towards materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system (i.e., salt and initial feed streams containing NaCl and water, having a salinity of 7% or 20% at a temperature of 298 K) and manners or methods by which the claimed system is used (i.e., passing salt, enhancing solute concentrations on the retentate side, and determining mass flow ratios) and thus, are not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). Such limitations have no bearing on the actual structure or functionality of the claimed system; if Applicant wishes to claim such properties as “salt passage percentage”, “solute enhancement factor”, or “mass flow ratio” then specific features directed toward membrane structures or functionalities responsible for such properties should be claimed.
Regarding Claims 41-43, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. Applicant cites the term “salt passage percentage” and requires that the second membrane separator has a different, a greater, and a salt passage percentage greater by a factor of 1.05 than that of the first membrane separator. As noted in §Claim Interpretation, such limitations related to “salt passage percentage” have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claims 44 and 45, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. Applicant cites the term “solute enhancement factor” and requires that at least two thirds (Claim 44) or all (Claim 45) of the membrane separators have a solute enhancement factor within 40% of the arithmetic average of all membrane separators. As noted in §Claim Interpretation, such limitations related to “salt passage percentage” have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claims 46 and 47, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 37. Applicant cites the term “mass flow ratio” and requires that at least two thirds (Claim 46) or all (Claim 47) of the membrane separators have a mass flow ratio within 40% of the arithmetic average of all membrane separators. As noted in §Claim Interpretation, such limitations related to “mass flow ratio” have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 48, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. As shown in FIG. 1, the retentate sides of the first membrane separator are connected to the retentate sides of the second membrane separator thereby allowing for the potential transport of liquid between the two membrane separators.
Regarding Claims 51, 52, 57, and 58, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. Applicant requires the second membrane separator to have rejections for at least one solute that is less than or less than by at least 5% of that of the first membrane separator (Claims 51 and 52) or that the first membrane separator and/or the second membrane separator have rejections for at least one solute of less than or equal to 95% or greater than or equal to 10% (Claims 57 and 58). However, such limitations are directed toward materials and articles worked upon by the claimed system (i.e., “at least one solute”) and manners or methods by which the claimed system is used. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). Such limitations have no bearing on the actual structure or functionality of the claimed system; if Applicant wishes to claim such properties as the rejection for at least one solute then specific features directed toward membrane structures or functionalities responsible for such properties should be claimed.
Regarding Claim 59, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. As shown in FIG. 1, the first membrane separator (left side) has four (4) individual membranes 18 whereas the second membrane separator (middle) has only two (2) individual membranes 18 (i.e., wherein the first membrane separator has a total membrane surface area that is different than a total membrane surface area of the second membrane separator).
Regarding Claims 63-65, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. As shown in FIG. 1, each bank of membrane separators includes a plurality of semi-permeable membranes 18 (i.e., wherein the first membrane separator and/or the second membrane separator comprises a plurality of semipermeable membranes). As further shown in FIG. 1, the semi-permeable membranes in each membrane separator are connected in parallel while the semi-permeable membranes across the first and second membrane separators are connected in series (i.e., wherein the plurality of semi-permeable membranes is connected in series; wherein the plurality of semi-permeable membranes is connected in parallel).
Regarding Claim 66, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. As shown in FIG. 1, the system further includes a third membrane separator having at least one semi-permeable membrane defining a retentate side and a permeate side (right-most unit in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 67, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 66. As shown in FIG. 1, the retentate side 22 of the middle bank of membrane units are connected to the retentate side 22 of the right-most membrane unit (i.e., wherein the system is configured to transport a liquid stream from the retentate side of the second membrane separator to the retentate side of the third membrane separator). Furthermore, the instant limitation “wherein the system is configured to transport a liquid stream…” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and thus, is not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). Materials or articles being treated by the claimed system have no bearing on patentable subject matter for the claimed system itself.
Claim(s) 55 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) with evidentiary support from WQA (Reverse Osmosis (RO) Fact Sheet. 2019. Water Quality Association. <URL: https://wqa.org/resources/reverse-osmosis-ro/>).
Regarding Claims 55 and 56, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. WARSINGER is deficient in disclosing the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has an average MWCO of less than or equal to 400 Daltons (Claim 55) or that the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has an average MWCO of greater than or equal to 50 Daltons (Claim 56).
However, such limitations are merely defining a common property of reverse osmosis membranes as evidenced by WQA. As shown in FIG. 1 of WQA, reverse osmosis membranes operate in the range of <200 MWCO, specifically a MWCO of 100 (pg. 6, par. 2). Thus, the claimed limitations of the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has an average MWCO of less than or equal to 400 Daltons (Claim 55) or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has an average MWCO of greater than or equal to 50 Daltons (Claim 56) are inherently anticipated based on the disclosure of WARSINGER. The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARSINGER et al. (US 2017/0216774 A1) in view of WRASIDLO (88/02653 A1).
Regarding Claims 60-62, WARSINGER discloses the system of Claim 35. WARSINGER is deficient in disclosing the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has cross-links, with at least some of the cross-links being disrupted (Claim 60), the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator has cross-links, with at least some of the cross-links being chemically disrupted (Claim 61), or that the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the first membrane separator and/or the at least one semi-permeable membrane of the second membrane separator comprises an active layer comprising a cross-linked polymeric material derived from monomers, and wherein fewer than or equal to 99.9 mol% of the monomers participate in at least one cross-link (Claim 62).
WRASIDLO teaches that reverse osmosis membranes are prepared from polymeric monomers that are typically crosslinked to control the pore size of the resulting membrane (pg. 17, lines 6-20; pg. 22, line 36-pg. 23, line 8). It is acknowledged that WRASIDLO primarily focuses on ultrafiltration membranes but notes that the disclosed controlled crosslinking teachings are “equally true in the present invention as it is in the reverse osmosis thin film membranes of the prior art” (pg. 9, lines 9-11). WRASIDLO further discloses that the crosslinking can be controlled by disrupting crosslinks in the membranes to achieve appropriate crosslink densities (pg. 22, lines 15-22) and discloses the use of oxidizing or hydrolyzing agents, such as sodium hypochlorite (pg. 23, lines 9-11; lines 30-32). Advantageously, by controlling the degree of crosslinking, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to control the desired pore size of the resultant membrane (pg. 17, lines 11-20). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide membranes with cross-links, with some of the cross-links being disrupted, e.g., chemically disrupted, as taught by WRASIDLO for the system disclosed by WARSINGER.
It is acknowledged that modified WARSINGER is deficient in explicitly disclosing that fewer than or equal to 99.9 mol% of the monomers participate in at least one cross-link; however, as noted by WRASIDLO, one of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of regulating the crosslinking process to achieve a desired cross link density (pg. 17, lines 11-20). The claimed parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable as taught by the prior art and can be optimized through routine experimentation (MPEP §2144.05 II B). Thus, the claimed range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49, 50, 53, 54, and 68 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the instant limitations of Claims 49 and 50 are directed toward fluid connections or transporting a liquid stream of a permeate side of the second membrane separator and the retentate side of the first membrane separator. Such limitations when considered with the limitations of Claim 35 are not disclosed or suggested by WARSINGER. A careful search of the prior art and consideration of all cited documents in the filed IDS do not indicate any art teaching or suggesting such a claimed invention.
The instant limitations of Claims 53 and 54 are directed toward the MWCO of the second membrane separator being greater than that of the first membrane separator, i.e., by a factor of at least 1.05. Such limitations are not disclosed or suggested by WARSINGER. A careful search of the prior art and consideration of all cited documents in the filed IDS do not indicate any art teaching or suggesting such a claimed invention.
The instant limitations of Claim 68 require that the permeate side of the third membrane separator is connected to the retentate side of the second membrane separator. Such limitations are not disclosed or suggested by WARSINGER. A careful search of the prior art and consideration of all cited documents in the filed IDS do not indicate any art teaching or suggesting such a claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights