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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Satoshi et al. (JP2016068006A).
Regarding Claim 1, Satoshi teaches a water treatment system (Abstract) comprising: a reverse-osmosis membrane separation device (reverse osmosis membrane apparatus 3) configured to separate treatment water into first concentrated water (¶0011, “a reverse osmosis membrane device for primary concentration of a liquid to be treated”) and first purified water (distilled water W4) by a reverse osmosis membrane(¶0011, “the primary concentrate W1 concentrated by the reverse osmosis membrane); and a ceramic membrane separation device (membrane distillation apparatus 4) including a ceramic membrane having a porosity permeable to water vapor and impermeable to liquid water (Figure 2, ¶0015, “the raw water section of the membrane distillation apparatus, and the vapor W2 of the primary concentrated liquid is allowed to permeate the hydrophobic porous membrane”), the ceramic membrane separation device being configured to separate the first concentrated water into second concentrated water and second purified water (Figure 1, ¶0015, “the primary provided is a concentration method characterized by concentrating a concentrate to produce a secondary concentrate W3”, distilled water W4).
Regarding Claim 2, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 1, further comprising a heating device (heat exchanger 5) configured to heat the first concentrated water (Figure 1, ¶0013, “it is preferable to provide heating means for heating the primary concentrated liquid”).
Regarding Claim 3, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 2, wherein the heating device is configured to heat the first concentrated water to 40 °C or higher (¶0017, Satoshi teaches the water to be heated to 90°C or higher which falls within the claim range of at least 40°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 2, wherein the heating device is configured to heat the first concentrated water to 60 °C or higher (¶0017, Satoshi teaches the water to be heated to 90°C or higher which falls within the claim range of at least 60°C).
Regarding Claim 5, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 2, further comprising a distillation device configured to distill the second concentrated water (Figure 2, ¶0006, “in concentration using multiple-effect distillation, distillation is performed by arranging several stages of distillation cans”, according to Satoshi et al., it is possible to have another distillation column to distill the second concentrated water), wherein the heating device is configured to heat the first concentrated water by waste heat of the distillation device (¶0006, “the heat required for distillation is given in the first stage, and the distillation is repeated while recovering heat given in the first stage without additional heating in the latter stage, making it possible to perform distillation economically”).
Regarding Claim 6, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 1, further comprising a distillation device configured to distill the second concentrated water (¶0006, “in concentration using multiple-effect distillation, distillation is performed by arranging several stages of distillation cans”, according to Satoshi et al., it is possible to have another distillation column to distill the second concentrated water).
Regarding Claim 7, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 2, wherein the treatment water is factory wastewater discharged from a factory, and the heating device is configured to heat the first concentrated water by factory waste heat discharged from the factory (¶0013, “it is preferable to provide heating means…, using waste heat”).
Regarding Claim 8, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic membrane separation device is configured to separate the first concentrated water into the second concentrated water and the second purified water by using a vapor pressure difference between a first surface and a second surface which are opposite surfaces of the ceramic membrane (Figure 2, where raw water chamber 12 and condensation chamber 13 are shown on opposite side of the hydrophobic porous membrane 11).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2016068006A) and further in view of Takashi et al. (JP2013202513A).
Regarding Claim 9, Satoshi et al. teaches the water treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the ceramic membrane separation device includes a supply flow path (raw water section 12 )through which the first concentrated water passes, and a low-temperature flow path (cooling section 15, ¶0025, “a cooling section 15 is provided on the wall surface of the condensation chamber 13”), and the supply flow path and the low-temperature flow path are arranged adjacent to each other with the ceramic membrane interposed between the supply flow path and the low-temperature flow path (Figure 2).
Satoshi et al. does not teach the low-temperature flow path having low-temperature water having a lower temperature than the first concentrated water passes.
Takashi et al. teaches the low-temperature flow path having low-temperature water having a lower temperature than the first concentrated water passes (¶0046, “for cooling, water with a relatively constant temperature that exists in nature, such as groundwater and seawater, may be used as cooling water”, because the first concentrated water passes are heated to at least 90°C, relative constant water will be at a lower than the first concentrated water passes).
Regarding Claim 10, Satoshi et al., teaches the water treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the ceramic membrane separation device includes a supply flow path through which the first concentrated water passes, a coolant flow path (cooling section 15), and an air gap (condensation chamber 13) arranged between the supply flow path and the coolant flow path, and the supply flow path and the air gap are arranged adjacent to each other with the ceramic membrane interposed between the supply flow path and the coolant flow path (Figure 2).
Satoshi et al. does not teach the low-temperature flow path having a coolant flow path through which coolant having a lower temperature than the first concentrated water passes.
Takashi et al. teaches a coolant flow path through which coolant having lower temperature than the first concentrated water passes (¶0046, “when cooling water having a temperature lower than that of these cooling waters is required, cooling liquid or the liked cooled by using a heat pump type cooling device or the like may be used”, the cooling liquid Takashi teaches, can be read as coolants”).
Satoshi et al. and Takashi et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of separation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Satoshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Takashi et al. and provide a use different type of cooling liquids, because doing so would aid in cooling the system down from vapor phase (Takeshi et al.,¶0046) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH HUYNH NGOC BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-5588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 5712720475. 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.
/A.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights