DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration.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 Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid et al, the article “Plasmonic Titanium Nitride Nano-enabled Membranes with High Structural Stability for Efficient Photothermal Desalination” (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1:
Farid teaches the method comprising: flowing wastewater through a feed side of a membrane distillation module (continuously circulate the feed) (see pg. 3807 section 2.4), wherein the feed side is separated from a collection portion of the membrane distillation module by a mixed matrix membrane having a matrix comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) with TiN nanoparticles dispersed therein (PVDF membrane with TiN photothermal coating) (see pg. 3808 Table 1), wherein the mixed matrix membrane has a porosity of 70.3% an average pore size from 0.201 µm, and a thickness from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (116µm); exposing the mixed matrix membrane to sunlight while the wastewater is flowing; and distilling water across the mixed matrix membrane (see pg. 3807 section 2.4).
Farid does not teach porosity from 35% to 50% or an average pore size from 250 nm to 550 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the porosity and pore size to within the claimer ranges through routine experimentation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 3:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the distilled water compared to the wastewater has a chemical oxygen demand removal rate of 80% or greater, a total dissolved solids removal rate of 90% or greater, and a conductivity removal rate of 90% or greater. The membrane has a 99.9% salt rejection (conductivity removal rate of 90% or more) (see pg. 3810 section 3.2) and is substantially identical to the claimed membrane, therefore the total dissolved solids removal and COD removal are presumed to be inherent. The removal rates are interpreted as properties of the membrane. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 4:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the distilling is characterized by a distillation flux from 0.1 LMH to 0.6 LMH (0.37) (see pg. 3812 section 3.5, right column).
Regarding Claim 5:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1.
Farid does not teach the mixed matrix membrane has a photothermal efficiency from 10% to 35%.. Farid further teaches the photothermal efficiency is dependent on the power density of the incident light (see pg. 3810). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the photothermal efficiency dependent on the desired or available light in order to treat the wastewater. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an
optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or
unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 6:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater has a temperature at an inlet of the feed side from 200C to 450C (feed at room temperature) (see pg. 3812 section 3.5).
Regarding Claim 7:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a coolant flowing through a coolant (cooling liquid) side of the membrane distillation module has a temperature at an inlet (see pg. 3810section 3.2) of the coolant side less than 20°C (distillate is at 20°C, therefore coolant is inherently less) (see pg. 3812 section 3.5). Farid does not explicitly teach a coolant temperature from 0°C to 10°C. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the temperature and use a teach a coolant temperature from 0°C to 10°C. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid et al, the article “Plasmonic Titanium Nitride Nano-enabled Membranes with High Structural Stability for Efficient Photothermal Desalination” (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panunzio (US 2012/0228117).
Regarding Claim 2:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1.
Farid does not teach wherein the wastewater is laundry wastewater. Farid further teaches that the method can be used for other sources of wastewater (see pg. 3811 section 3.4, right column).
Panunzio teaches treating laundry water with distillation (see para. 0018).
Farid and Panunzio are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. Through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the method of Farid to treat the laundry wastewater of Panunzio because it is the simple substitution of one wastewater source with another wastewater source, obviously resulting in distilled water, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 8:
Farid teaches the method of claim 1.
Farid does not teach using the distilled water for agricultural irrigation.
Panunzio teaches using distilled water for agricultural irrigation (see para. 0017-0018).
Farid and Panunzio are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. Through routine experimentation, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the distilled water of Farid for irrigation, as disclosed by Panunzio, because it is a known use for water treated by distillation. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
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 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights