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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-20 remain pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11 in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3A contains drawn-in reference numbers which are not legible. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations “wherein the second fluid path does not include any membranes therein” do not appear to be supported by Applicant’s Specification. Rather, the Specification provides support for the second fluid path not including the one or more membranes of the first fluid path (see Paragraphs [0008, 0082]; original claim 1). See MPEP 2173.05(i), third paragraph.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations “controlling a flushing pressure of the fluid to a value that prevents any backwash through the one of more membranes” does not appear to have support in Applicant’s Specification, which supports original claim 8 “to regulate backwash” in Paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “in which a flushing pressure is set to a predetermined value such that permeate continues to be produced” does not appear to have support in Applicant’s disclosure.
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.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2005/0067341) in view of Boshoff et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0022585), hereinafter “Green” and “Boshoff”.
With respect to claim 1, Green discloses a method of flushing a system (Abstract; Paragraphs [0011-0016]), comprising: isolating and removal from service (“decoupling”) one or more membranes from a circulation system (Abstract; Paragraphs [0011, 0026] discloses washing of a stage; Paragraphs [0048, 0052] discloses second stage 3 isolation and flush-wash; Paragraph [0054] teaches stages of the membrane plant can be parsed into a plurality of stage increments wherein membrane stages are isolated, flushed and washed on a stage increment-by-stage increment); coupling the one or more membranes (63) to a pump (20) configured to deliver one or more fluids therefrom to form a first fluid path (20 to 38) (Paragraphs [0050, 0052]); pumping fluid through the first fluid path to release concentrate formed in at least one of the one or more membranes or one or more components of the circulation system having the one or more membranes coupled thereto (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0048, 0050, 0052, 0053]); and pumping fluid through a second fluid path (20 to 40) of the circulation system to release concentrate formed therein, the second fluid path not including the one or more membranes (63) of the first fluid path (Paragraph [0052]).
Green does not specifically teach wherein a flow rate of the fluid through the first fluid path is determined by a maximum flow rate tolerated by each of the one or more membranes in the first flow path; however, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to limit the flow rate through the first flow path comprising the one or more membranes by the maximum allowable flow rate tolerated by the membranes, in order to not damage the capillaries within the membranes due to over-pressurization, as is taught by Boshoff in Paragraph [0111].
With respect to claim 2, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the pumping fluid through the first path and the pumping fluid through the second path occurs substantially simultaneously; Green: Paragraph [0025] teaches flushing and washing cycle on the affected stage; Green Paragraph [0052] teaches valves 38, 39, 40 and 41 the second stage 3 can be connected to the wash circuit 42).
With respect to claim 3, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising a fluid flow path which does not contain any membranes through which concentrate is flushed out (see Paragraph [0049]; Fig. 1; bypass line 9 being the fluid flow path without membranes).
With respect to claim 4, Green in view of Boshoff discloses wherein the flow rate of fluid when pumping fluid through the second path is greater than a flow rate of fluid when pumping fluid through the first path (see Green: Paragraph [0042] disclosing manifold pressure is increased when a stage increment is removed from service for flushing; see Green: Paragraph [0057] disclosing each increment can be a single vessel or a bundle of vessels connected to a manifold; therefore it would be inherent that when stage 2 is isolated for flushing, the flowrate through the second path would be greater than the flow rate through the first path when the first path contains a manifold connecting multiple vessels and the second fluid path contains a single vessel, therefore increasing the flow rate in the second fluid path since the pressure is increased).
With respect to claim 5, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: decoupling a first portion of the circulation system from the circulation system (via 40) such that the second fluid path comprises a first fluid sub-path (64 to 41) and a second fluid subpath (64 to unlabeled wash-flush valve connected to 9 in Fig. 1 of Green), wherein pumping fluid through the second fluid path further comprises: pumping fluid through the first fluid sub-path; and pumping fluid through the second fluid sub-path (see Green: Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0048, 0050, 0052]).
With respect to claim 6, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: decoupling a first membrane (63) from the one or more membranes such that the first fluid path comprises a first membrane fluid sub-path (38 to 63) and a second membrane fluid sub-path (63 to 36), wherein pumping fluid through the first fluid path further comprises: pumping fluid through the first membrane fluid sub-path; and pumping fluid through the second membrane fluid sub-path (see Green: Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0048, 0052]).
With respect to claim 7, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the first fluid path (38 to 63) and the second fluid path (40 to 64) flow through common circulation tubing (47) prior to branching into the first fluid path and the second fluid path (see Green: Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0048, 0053]).
With respect to claim 8, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, in which a flushing pressure is controlled to prevent backwash through the one or more membranes (Green: Paragraph [0047] discusses that orifice size is adjusted to create a back pressure created by the offline stage, while Green Paragraph [0052] teaches an artificial back-pressure equivalent variable pressure valve that is used to generate the desired back pressure in order to produce more permeate; i.e., backwash is prevented).
With respect to claim 11, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1, in which a flushing pressure is set in order to continue producing permeate throughout at least one of the actions of pumping fluid through the first fluid path to release concentrate or pumping fluid through the second fluid path to release concentrate (see Green: Paragraphs [0047, 0048, 0052], considered to be consistent with setting “predetermined” flushing pressure value(s)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2005/0067341) in view of Boshoff et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0022585) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jones et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074551), hereinafter “Green”, “Boshoff”, and “Jones”.
With respect to claim 9, Green in view of Boshoff renders obvious the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose in which a flushing pressure is varied when performing at least one of the actions of pumping fluid through the first fluid path to release concentrate or pumping fluid through the second fluid path to release concentrate.
Jones discloses a flushing pressure is varied when performing at least one of the actions of pumping fluid through the first fluid path to release concentrate or pumping fluid through the second fluid path to release concentrate (Column 4, Iines 48-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the varied pressure disclosed in Jones with the method of Green to effectively scour the membrane as disclosed by Jones (Column 4, Iines 20-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 01 September 2026
Prosecution Insights