DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 9, 10, and 14-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 the species of figure 1 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are generic and claim 8 corresponds to the species of figure 1. Claims 9, 10 and 14-21 are not generic and do not correspond to the species of figure 1 and are therefore withdrawn from consideration. . The applicant did not indicate claim 10 as withdrawn, however claim 10 is directed to a “flat membrane arranged as a layered assembly” not a hollow fiber membrane and is therefore not generic and not part of the elected species.
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 2, 3, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim refers to “the impurities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim refers to “the permeate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claims state “the permeate is configured to be aggregated across the plurality of membranes and provided…” It is not clear how the permeate can be “configured” as it is not a structural feature.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim refers to the “aggregated permeate”, “the permeate” and “the downstream application”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations within the claims.
Claims 8 and 11 are indefinite as they depend from claim 3.
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) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arah (US 2017/0283281) in view of Das et al, the article “Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification: A bright future in water desalination” (cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1:
Arah teaches the filter cartridge for purification and concentration filtration for residential and commercial applications, comprising: a cartridge frame (fluid filtration unit) configured to be removably coupled (configured for removable attachment) to a filtration application to receive a flow of fluid (see para. 0004); and a membrane assembly (unit of filter media) coupled to an interior of the cartridge frame comprising at least one membrane (hollow fiber membrane) (see para. 0004, 0005, figs. 3, 4).
Arah does not teach the at least one membrane comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes aligned by electrokinetic methods to allow for a selective permeation of the fluid through the surface of the at least one membrane.
Das teaches at least one membrane comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes aligned (Well-aligned CNT) to allow for a selective permeation (high fluxing separation, rejecting salt ions) of the fluid through the surface of the at least one membrane (see pg. 98, right column 2nd paragraph). Das does not teach the nanotubes are aligned by electrokinetic methods, however this is a product by process limitation and only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art structure must be the same. In the instant case Das teaches a structure with vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (vertical CNT arrangement) (see fig. 3) which is structurally the same as the instant invention (see, for example claim 7 of the instant invention).
Arah and Das are analogous inventions in the art of water filtering membranes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the membrane material of Arah if the carbon nanotube membrane material of Das because CNT membranes have improved water permeability, flux and self-cleaning abilities (see Das pg. 106, left column, 2nd paragraph) are able to preplace other membrane types (see Das pg. 104 section 4.5) and Arah does not limit the type of membrane used.
Regarding Claim 2:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the impurities comprise at least one of ions, metals, inorganic, organic, or biological contaminants and the selective permeation of fluid provides for permeate along a hollow interior of the at least one membrane (see Arah para. 0036). The type of impurities is a method limitations directed to the material being treated, not a structural feature of the filter cartridge. As the claims are directed to an apparatus, not a method the limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art structurer must be capable of filtering the same impurities. As the prior art teaches a water filter it is capable of treating water with impurities comprising at least one of ions, metals, inorganic, organic, or biological contaminants.
Regarding Claim 3:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the at least one membrane comprises a plurality of membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membranes) (see Arah para. 0005) and the permeate is configured to be aggregated across the plurality of membranes (see Arah para. 0037) and provided to a downstream application (pitcher) of the filtration application (see Arah para. 0031, fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the filtration application comprises a purification filtration application for at least one of: a kitchen faucet, a beverage faucet, a drinking fountain, a bottle filler (faucet) (see Arah fig. 5, para. 0031), a refrigerator water dispenser, or an ice maker. It is noted that the “filtration application” is the intended use and what the cartridge frame is “removably coupled to” and not a structural feature of the “carbon nanotube filter cartridge”. The claims are directed to a “filter cartridge”. Therefore filtration application only adds patternable weight to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same use.
Regarding Claim 5:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the filtration application comprises an artesian water generator (pitcher, any drinking water filter is consider dot be an artesian water generator) or a gravity filter application (see Arah, fig. 5, para. 0031). It is noted that the “filtration application” is the intended use and what the cartridge frame is “removably coupled to” and not a structural feature of the “carbon nanotube filter cartridge”. The claims are directed to a “filter cartridge”. Therefore filtration application only adds patternable weight to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same use.
Regarding Claim 6:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the filtration application comprises at least one of: a steam generation bath, a humidifier, a water heater, greywater treatment system, a toilet, urinal, bidet, a shower spray head, a shower faucet, a lavatory faucet, a bath filler, or a bathroom faucet (faucet, the location of the faucet does not add patentable weight to a device) (faucet) (see Arah fig. 5, para. 0031). It is noted that the “filtration application” is the intended use and what the cartridge frame is “removably coupled to” and not a structural feature of the “carbon nanotube filter cartridge”. The claims are directed to a “filter cartridge”. Therefore filtration application only adds patternable weight to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same use.
Regarding Claim 7:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are aligned through electrokinetic methods and extend between a thickness of the membrane, wherein each nanotube includes a first end terminating at a first surface of the membrane and a second end terminating at a second opposite surface of the membrane (see Das Fig. 3, 6).
Regarding Claim 12:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the membrane is configured to be back-flushed (backwashed) to improve a lifespan of the filter cartridge (see Arah para. 0034).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arah (US 2017/0283281) in view of Das et al, the article “Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification: A bright future in water desalination” (cited in IDS) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of JP 6912019 (hereafter referred to as ‘019, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 8:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 3, wherein each membrane of the plurality of membranes comprises a hollow fiber (see Arah para. 0005)
Arah does not explicitly teach the hollow fibers having a circular cross section.
‘019 teaches a hollow fiber water filter wherein the hollow fibers have a circular cross section (see pg. 1, first paragraph, pg. 8, 4th paragraph, fig. 8, and pg. 9, 2d paragraph).
Arah, as modified, and ‘019 area analogous inventions in the art of hollow fiber membrane water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use hollow fiber membranes with a circular cross section, as disclosed by ‘019 in the filter of Arah because it is a shape known to be appropriate for hollow fiber membranes and one skilled in the art would have had an expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arah (US 2017/0283281) in view of Das et al, the article “Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification: A bright future in water desalination” (cited in IDS) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view Herrington et al (US 2012/0298578).
Regarding Claim 11:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 3.
Arah is silent to the spacing between the membranes.
Herrington teaches a filter cartridge wherein a spacing between the plurality of membranes comprises a distance of 0.5 mm or less (0.076 mm) (see para. 0059).
Arah and Herrington are analogous inventions in the art of membrane water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a membrane spacing of less than 0.5 mm, as disclosed by Herrington in the filter cartridge of Arah because it allows for more membranes within the same space which reduces the pressure drop in the filter (see Herrington para. 0059).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arah (US 2017/0283281) in view of Das et al, the article “Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification: A bright future in water desalination” (cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Cherny et al (US 2022/0258957.
Regarding Claim 13:
Arah, as modified, teaches the carbon nanotube filter cartridge of claim 1.
Arah does not teach a cartridge coupled to the membrane assembly configured to provide at least one supplement to the aggregated permeate prior to the permeate being provided to the downstream application of the filtration application.
Cherny teaches a water filter comprising a cartridge (capsule) coupled to the membrane assembly configured to provide at least one supplement (flavor additive) to the aggregated permeate prior to the permeate being provided to the downstream application of the filtration application (see para. 0038).
Arah, as modified, and Cherny are analogous inventions in the art of water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cartridge configured to provide at least sone supplement, as disclosed by Cherny, to the aggregated permeate of Arah because it is the simple addition of a known water treating feature to a known water treatment device, obviously resulting in flavored water with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Further Arah teaches that additional treatment cartridges can be included (see Arah para. 0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yin et al, the article “Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs)/polysulfone (PSU) mixed matrix hollow fiber membranes for enhanced water treatment” which teaches hollow fiber membranes comprising g carbon nanotubes. Yin et al, the article “The Relevant Approaches for Aligning Carbon Nanotubes” which teaches carbon nanotubes aligned by electrokinetic methods (see section 3.3.1 Electric Field Assisted Method).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 3/17/2026