DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on September 22, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The upstream clarifier or fine screen as recited in Claim 4;
The screen recited in Claim 5;
The rotating drum screen recited in Claim 6;
The screen recited in Claim 8; and,
The piston seal recite in Claim 16.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the recitation of “at least a parts of the frame” is grammatically incorrect;
In Claim 2, line 2, each instance of “2” should be as a superscript;
In Claim 7, line 8, each instance of “2” should be as a superscript; and,
In Claim 9, line 2, each instance of “2” should be as a superscript.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation "tops of the upper headers" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites connecting the upper headers and permeate collection pipe, all structural elements, “through a vertical motion” which lacks any meaning as to how movement relates to structural relationships. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring an upper header and permeate collection pipe.
Claim 2 recites “a tank intensity” which lacks meaning as this term would not be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification attempts to define the term as “[t]ank intensity (alternatively called footprint intensity) is expressed as the area of membrane surface area per unit area of tank footprint occupied by a single cassette” (Spec., Paragraph 19 (“Pr”)). However, the specific area of the membrane surface area is not specified such that is it a portion of the membrane or the entire membrane. Thus, the definition of tank intensity lacks any meaning. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a tank having any dimensions of a footprint.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “a tank intensity” which lacks meaning as this term would not be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification attempts to define the term as “[t]ank intensity (alternatively called footprint intensity) is expressed as the area of membrane surface area per unit area of tank footprint occupied by a single cassette” (Spec., Paragraph 19 (“Pr”)). However, the specific area of the membrane surface area is not specified such that is it a portion of the membrane or the entire membrane. Thus, the definition of tank intensity lacks any meaning. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a tank having any dimensions of a footprint.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “mixed liquor” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not define the limitation rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites screening the influent waste water, recirculating the activated sludge and/or mixed liquor to arrive an average trash level yet does not recite any acts in the screening or recirculating steps to achieve the function of a trash level. For purposes of examination, the clause will be interpreted as requiring screening of influent wastewater or recirculation of any material anywhere in the process.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “average trash level” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not define the limitation rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 relates to the screening step yet the screening step is optional in Claim 7 from which the claim depends and may not exist thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "tops of the upper headers" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites connecting the permeate ports and permeate collection pipe, all structural elements, “through a vertical motion” which lacks any meaning as to how movement relates to structural relationships. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring permeate ports and permeate collection pipe.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "permeate collection pipe" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "permeate collection pipe" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "permeate collection pipe" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gungerich, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2001/0027951 (“Gungerich”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device and a method.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Gungerich discloses an immersed membrane cassette comprising, a frame (Fig. 3, items 48, 54, Pr28,29); and, a plurality of modules, each module having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes extending vertically when in use (Figs. 1, 3, items 12, 14, Pr21) and mounted between an upper header and a lower header (Figs. 1-3, items 16, 18, Pr21), wherein the plurality of modules are selectively mounted on the frame (Figs. 1, 3), wherein the immersed membrane cassette has one or more of: a gap between modules of 20 mm or less or 15 mm or less; structural hollow tubing in at least a parts of the frame configured to provide a permeate collection pipe (Figs. 1-3, items 16, Pr21); and, permeate ports in the tops of the upper headers selectively connected to the permeate collection pipe through a vertical motion (Figs. 1-3, items 16, 20, Pr22; see also 112(b) analysis supra).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, Gungerich discloses an activated sludge wastewater treatment process comprising the steps of, filtering mixed liquor through an immersed membrane cassette (Pr2), wherein the immersed membrane cassette comprises a frame (Fig. 3, items 48, 54, Pr28,29) and a plurality of modules, each module having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes extending vertically when in use (Figs. 1, 3, items 12, 14, Pr21) and mounted between an upper header and a lower header (Figs. 1-3, items 16, 18, Pr21), wherein the plurality of modules are selectively mounted on the frame (Figs. 1, 3), wherein the cassette has a tank intensity of at least 650 m2/m2 (Pr24,34,36 (note presence of tank); see also 112(b) analysis supra); and, screening influent wastewater, recirculating activated sludge and/or or mixed liquor to provide an average trash level in the mixed liquor around the cassette of <2 mg/L (Pr6,7 (note recirculating)).
Regarding Claims 11-15 and 17, Gungerich discloses an immersed membrane cassette comprising, a frame (Fig. 3, items 48, 54, Pr28,29); a plurality of modules, each module having a plurality of hollow fiber membranes extending vertically when in use from an upper header (Figs. 1, 3, items 12, 14, Pr21), wherein the plurality of modules are selectively mounted on the frame (Figs. 1, 3); and, permeate ports in the tops of the upper headers (Figs. 1-3, items 16, 20, Pr22).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: having a tank intensity over 650 m2/m2, for example in the range of 750-900 m2/m2, for use in treating wastewater or over 900 m2/m2 for use in filtering drinking water or tertiary filtration (Pr24,34,36 (note presence of tank); see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 9: wherein the cassette has a tank intensity in the range of 750-900 m2/m2 (Pr24,34,36 (note presence of tank); see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 12: wherein the permeate ports are selectively connected to a permeate collection pipe through a vertical motion (Figs. 1-3, items 16, 20, Pr22; see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 13: wherein the permeate collection pipe is a structural hollow section of the frame. (Figs. 1-3, items 16, Pr21). Claim 14: rails mounted to the frame for sliding the modules into the frame (Fig. 3, items 48, 54, Pr28,29). Claim 15: a cradle adapted to lift an end of a module relative to the frame (Figs. 1-3, items 28, 30, 52, Pr26,28). Claim 17: wherein the permeate collection pipe is a horizontal structural member on a peripheral edge of the frame (Figs. 1-3, item 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gungerich, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2001/0027951 (“Gungerich”) in view of Pedersen, et al., International Publication No. WO 01/36074A1 (“Pedersen”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device and a method.
Regarding Claim 3, Gungerich discloses the cassette of Claim 1 except wherein the gap between modules is 15 mm or less, for example in the range of 8 to 15 mm or 8 to 12 mm, for use in treating wastewater, or 4-8 mm for use in filtering drinking water or tertiary filtration.
Regarding Claim 10, Gungerich discloses the process of Claim 7 except wherein the cassette has a gap between modules of 20 mm or less, or 15 mm or less, or in the range of 8-12 mm.
Pederson also relates to an immersed membrane having a plurality of membrane modules and process of treating water and discloses wherein the gap between modules is 15 mm or less, for example in the range of 8 to 15 mm or 8 to 12 mm, for use in treating wastewater, or 4-8 mm for use in filtering drinking water or tertiary filtration (Page 8/Lines16-17 (“Pg/L”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the modules disclosed by Gungerich apart by the distance disclosed by Pedersen because, according to Pedersen, such spacing assists in water and air penetrating the membranes while also providing for a large surface area of the membranes (Pg8/L17-20).
Regarding Claim 16, Gungerich discloses the cassette of Claim 11 except a piston seal between the upper headers and the permeate collection pipe.
Pederson also relates to an immersed membrane having a plurality of membrane modules and discloses a piston seal between the upper headers and the permeate collection pipe (Fig. 4, items 48, Pg9/L22-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the headers and permeate collection pipe disclosed by Gungerich with the piston seal disclosed by Pedersen to prevent leakage of fluid upon removal of permeate fittings and, according to Pedersen, this is a water tight seal (Pg9/L33)
Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gungerich, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2001/0027951 (“Gungerich”) in view of “Wastewater Management Fact Sheet Membrane Bioreactors,” EPA, 2007 (“EPA”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device and a method.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Gungerich discloses the cassette of Claim 1 except in combination with an upstream clarifier or fine screen.
Regarding Claim 8, Gungerich discloses the process of Claim 7 except wherein the step of screening is performed with a screen having openings with a maximum dimension measured through the geometric center in the range of 1-4.5 mm.
EPA also relates to an immersed membrane and method of water treatment and discloses a fine screen (Page 3 / Column 2 / Paragraph 2 (“Pg/C/Pr”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the membrane cassette and method disclosed by Gungerich with the fine screen disclosed by the EPA because, according to the EPA, this reduces the chance of membrane damage (Pg3/C2/Pr2).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 5: a screen having openings with a maximum dimension measured through the geometric center in the range of 1-4.5 mm (EPA, Pg3/C2/Pr2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gungerich, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2001/0027951 (“Gungerich”) in view of “Wastewater Management Fact Sheet Membrane Bioreactors,” EPA, 2007 (“EPA”) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Cote, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0131066 (“Cote”).
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
The combination of Gungerich and EPA discloses the cassette of Claim 5 except wherein the screen is part of an internally fed rotating drum screen.
Cote also relates to immersed membranes for treating wastewater and discloses wherein the screen is part of an internally fed rotating drum screen (Fig. 2B, item 36, Pr20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the membrane cassette disclosed by the combination of Gungerich and EPA with the drum screen disclosed by Cote because, according to Cote, like the EPA (Pg3/C2/Pr2), the drum screen inhibits damage to the membrane (Pr20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights