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 with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is sufficient overlap between the claimed subject matter that there would be no burden for search and examination. This is not found persuasive because claims are directed to two different inventions. Therefore the search and examination required will be substantially different. The field of invention is also very crowded, which results in multitudes of references to be considered, adding to the burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 1 now recites that the first separator is a membrane separator. Therefore, claim 11 has a different scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Holder et al, Development Status of the International Space Station Urine Processor Assembly, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, 2003-01-2690, in view of CN 206199023 U.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Holder teaches a urine/wastewater treatment apparatus having a urine tank (see the annotated figure), first separator (evaporator-compressor), the first pump (see peristaltic pump cluster), a second tank for brine (marked), a compressor (integral with the separator/evaporator, fig. 2), and a storage tank for the treated water (condensate), which is implied, or at the least obvious.
A treated water storage tank is implied in the apparatus, but also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide such a tank, without which the operation of this apparatus would be restricted in the space station. See also the CN reference.
Holder does not teach a membrane separator as the first separator. CN teaches a membrane separation unit with vapor compression “which can effectively reduce the energy consumption of the membrane distillation and thereby reduce the production cost.” Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of CN in the teaching of Holder to reduce energy consumption.
Claim 2: the second separator is identified in the figure.
Claims 6 and 11: the separator in Holder is a rotary separator.
Claims 8 and 12: since the second separator is similarly represented in Holder, the separator also would be the same, unless otherwise shown.
Claim 9: the first separator, the second tank and the pump are in a recycle loop – see the figure.
Claim 10: while Holder does not explicitly teach a second brine storage tank, it teaches “The UPA is packaged into 7 ORUs, which take up slightly more than half of the WAS Rack #2. The RFTA is the only expendable ORU, designed for a 30-day changeout.” The RFTA being the recycle filter-tank assembly, which is taught as “expendable” and needs changing out. Therefore, having additional such units (storage tanks) is implied or obvious. Also see fig. 1 of Nash (rejection 2 below) for evidence of providing condensate reservoir (46) in a similar vapor-compression system.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Holder et al, Development Status of the International Space Station Urine Processor Assembly, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, 2003-01-2690, in view of CN 206199023 U and further in view of Nash (US 3,455,791).
Holder does not teach a heat exchanger as in claim 4, but such provision of heat exchangers is well-known to capture waste heat or for energy conversation.
PNG
media_image2.png
319
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Nash, for example, which provides a heat exchanger (12) in the vapor/condensate line from compressor (22) to exchange heat with incoming feed seawater in a vapor-compression desalination system. Nash also provides a storage tank (46) for the condensate. Column 3, lines 20-25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the system of Holder more energy efficient as taught by Nash, by having the distillate vapor pass through such a heat exchanger in place of providing separate coolant.
Regarding the second pump of claim 5, providing additional pumps as required to maintain the flow through such a heat exchanger would have been prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143-I, C and D. Locations of the second pump, the collection tank, the heat exchanger, and the condenser would be as claimed when the pump and the heat exchanger are located downstream of the urine tank.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over CN 206199023 U, in view of Holder as cited in rejection 1 above, and further in view of Nash cited in rejection 2.
PNG
media_image3.png
428
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CN teaches a vapor compression – membrane distillation unit having a feed (collection) tank 11, first separator (membrane 15,) pump 13, compressor 18, product water tank 19 and a heat exchanger 14 as claimed. CN does not teach a separate brine tank, but a common brine and feed tank. Alternately, tank 11 is the brine tank, in which case, CN fails to teach a urine tank. Providing separate tanks for feed and brine would have been prima facie obvious: mere duplication of parts, MPEP 2144.04. Also see the teaching Holder, details in rejection 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Holder in the teaching of CN to have the system made usable in confined spaces like the space station and produce potable water from wastewater and conserve water.
Claim 2, 6, 8, 11, 12: first separator includes the compressor in CN. Second separator is the vapor-compression separator downstream of the membrane. Compressors are often rotary as taught by Holder. Compressor causes phase separation as disclosed in the specification. Further, see Holder for the first and second separators.
Claim 4: heat exchanger 14 exchanges heat from compressed vapor condensing into the membrane feed water.
Claims 5, 7, 10 – see Nash as applied in ejection 2.
Claim 9: tank 11 is in a recycle loop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2/2/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777