CTNF 18/573,157 CTNF 91624 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status Claims(s) 15-27, 29-36 , is/are filed on 12/21/2023 are currently pending. Claim(s) 15- 25 is/are withdrawn, 26-27, 29-36 is/are rejected. Election/Restriction 18-07 AIA The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: 18-18 Requirement for Unity of Invention As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). 18-19 AIA Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. 18-06 AIA Group I claim(s) 15-25 , drawn to a membrane assembly . Group II claim(s) 26-36 drawn to a liquid panel for use in a liquid to air membrane energy exchanger . GROUPS I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a membrane film configured to transfer heat and moisture between a liquid and air flowing through the LAMEE; and a plurality of tensile support members connected to the membrane film, the plurality of tensile support members being in spaced relation to one another and oriented perpendicular to a direction of flow of the liquid through the LAMEE, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Henry (CA 2300209 A) in view of LePoudre (US 20160054012 A1). Henry teaches a liquid panel for use in a liquid to air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE), the liquid panel comprising: a support frame (412); and a pair of membrane assemblies (418) connected to opposing sides of the support frame, wherein each membrane assembly comprises: a membrane film (508) configured to transfer heat and moisture between a liquid and air flowing through the LAMEE. Henry does not teach a plurality of tensile support members connected to the membrane film, the plurality of tensile support members being in spaced relation to one another and oriented perpendicular to a direction of flow of the liquid through the LAMEE. LePoudre discloses an apparatus (10) to transfer gas in or out of a liquid via a flexible gas permeable but water impermeable membrane. Said apparatus (10) is comprised of a membrane (12), spacers (14), an inlet conduit (16) and an outlet conduit (18). Edges of said membrane (12) are folded around the inlet conduit (16) and outlet conduit (18) and secured with stitching (122) or glue to form parallel planar elements (126). LePoudre discusses that membrane material lack sufficient strength to be durable in hostile environments, and proposes a solution to this problem by incorporating a restraint system (20). Specifically, the membrane (12) is supported by the restraint system (20) consisting of a series of tensile members in the forms of loops (30). LePoudre also discloses, in a second embodiment, that a tensile member in the form of a wire or rope (42) may be sewn or glued around a substantial part of the planer elements (126). Said wire or rope (42) sticks outside the planer element, and by being formed in a loop may creating four points of attachment. Said wire or rope (42) support members are in a spaced relationship to one another and oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow of liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to incorporated the teachings of LePoudre into Henry for the purpose of improving durability of the liquid to air membrane energy exchanger During a telephone conversation with Timothy Grawthol on 3/5/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II claim(s) 26-27, 29-36 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action . Claim(s) 15-25 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention . 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 27 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof (or vice versa). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k). Examiner notes that, from the context, it appears as if claim 26 should depend from withdrawn claim 15 rather than claim 27. This would parallel the arrangement would eliminate the duplicate claim issue. 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. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim(s) 26 depends on claim 27. According to MPEP 608.01(n), a dependent claim that refers to a higher-numbered (numerically succeeding) claim is improper. It fails to comply with the requirement that a dependent claim must refer to a previously set forth claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 26-27, 29-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (CA 2300209 A) in view of LePoudre (US 20160054012 A1) . PNG media_image1.png 658 787 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 27, Henry teaches a liquid panel for use in a liquid to air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE), the liquid panel comprising: a support frame (412); and a pair of membrane assemblies (418) connected to opposing sides of the support frame, wherein each membrane assembly comprises: a membrane film (508) configured to transfer heat and moisture between a liquid and air flowing through the LAMEE. Henry does not teach a plurality of tensile support members connected to the membrane film, the plurality of tensile support members being in spaced relation to one another and oriented perpendicular to a direction of flow of the liquid through the LAMEE [0023-0070]. PNG media_image2.png 715 661 media_image2.png Greyscale LePoudre discloses an apparatus (10) to transfer gas in or out of a liquid via a flexible gas permeable but water impermeable membrane. Said apparatus (10) is comprised of a membrane (12), spacers (14), an inlet conduit (16) and an outlet conduit (18). Edges of said membrane (12) are folded around the inlet conduit (16) and outlet conduit (18) and secured with stitching (122) or glue to form parallel planar elements (126). LePoudre discusses that membrane material lack sufficient strength to be durable in hostile environments, and proposes a solution to this problem by incorporating a restraint system (20). Specifically, the membrane (12) is supported by the restraint system (20) consisting of a series of tensile members in the forms of loops (30). LePoudre also discloses, in a second embodiment, that a tensile member in the form of a wire or rope (42) may be sewn or glued around a substantial part of the planer elements (126). Said wire or rope (42) sticks outside the planer element, and by being formed in a loop may creating four points of attachment. Said wire or rope (42) support members are in a spaced relationship to one another and oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow of liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to incorporated the teachings of LePoudre into Henry for the purpose of improving durability of the liquid to air membrane energy exchanger (p. 2-9). Regarding claim 29, LePoudre teaches wherein the plurality of tensile support members are substantially parallel to one another (see fig. 9). Regarding claim 30, LePoudre teaches wherein each of the plurality of tensile support members spans entirely across a major dimension of the membrane film (see fig. 1, 20 and 30 are on each side of the square 10). Regarding claim 31, Henry teaches wherein the plurality of tensile support members are each curved (see the curve formed by 30, i.e. loops) to project into a liquid channel of the LAMEE (intended use) (“In some cases, the wire or rope may assume a curved shape”). Regarding claim 32, Henry teaches wherein each of the plurality of tensile support members comprise non-woven spun-bonded filament(s). Regarding claim 33, Henry may not teach wherein each of the plurality of tensile support members comprise spun-bonded nanofibers. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected such nanofiber for strength and durability as the LePoudre indicates that clamping connectors such as those used to secure tarps (which are already known to spunbound nonwoven nanofibers). Regarding claim 34, Henry teaches wherein the membrane film comprises a microporous film [0061-0064]. Regarding claim 35, Henry teaches wherein the membrane film comprises a low surface energy polymer (i.e. PTFE) [0063]. Regarding claim 36, Henry teaches wherein the membrane film comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0063]. Regarding claim 26, Henry teaches wherein the membrane film comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0063]. *** It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM. 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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 2 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 3 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 4 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 5 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 6 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 7 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 8 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 9 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 10 Art Unit: 1777 Application/Control Number: 18/573,157 Page 11 Art Unit: 1777