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 .
Priority Status
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. BE2021/5847, filed on 10/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claims 1-13 recite “characterized in that” which is non-standard European-style language. It is respectfully suggested to amend the claims to use standard U.S. claim terminology, such as “wherein,” for clarity and proper form.
(ii) Claims 1 (line 2) and 15 (line 2) recite “purification and/or filtering” uses the disfavored and/or construction. It is respectfully suggested to amend the claims to clearly recite “purification and filtering” or another definite formulation consistent with the intended scope.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
(i) Claim 1 recites “a fluid such as water or wastewater” renders the scope of the claim unclear. The claim first broadly recites “a fluid”, but then narrows or exemplifies the fluid using the phrase “such as water or wastewater”. It is unclear whether the claimed module is limited to use with water/wastewater or whether water/wastewater are merely non-limiting examples. See 2173.05(c). Exemplary language such as “such as” render the claim indefinite where it creates uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Because claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, 2-18 are indefinite for the same reason. It is respectfully suggested to amend “wherein the fluid is water or wastewater” or “wherein the fluid comprises water or wastewater.”
(ii) Claim 15 recites “Use of the filtration module according to claim 1 for the purification and/or filtering of liquids”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is intended to be directed to a method, an intended use, or merely a statement of purpose for the filtration module. The method claims should positively recite the process steps performed rather than merely reciting a “use of” statement. See MPEP 2173.05(q) and MPEP 2111.02 regarding intended use and preamble limitations. It is respectfully suggested to amend the claims to “A method of purifying or filtering a liquid comprising passing the liquid through the filtration module of claim 1.”
(iii) Claim 16 is considered indefinite because of its dependency on claim 15. If claim 15 is rewritten in method form, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 16 into active method language, for example, “wherein the method further comprises backwashing the filtration module at a pressure of at least 100 mbar.”
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 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 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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Bruess (WO 03/037489 A1, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter as “Bruess”) in view of Benson et al., (US 2019/0314765 A1, hereinafter as “Benson).
Regarding claim 1, Bruess teaches a filtration module for purifying wastewater (Abstract); said module comprising:
A plurality of filter membrane pockets consists of two membrane foils 13, 14 (i.e., envelopes; Fig. 1a; p. 2, lines 27-30), arranged vertically and parallel, preferably at the same distance from one another, in a rigid supporting element (or holder), such that spaces between adjacent filter membrane pockets can be flowed through by liquid (Figs. 1-2, Abstract; p. 1, lines 11-14).
But Bruess does not explicitly disclose that each filter membrane envelopes have an end portion covered by a U-shaped metal cap.
However, Benson teaches a filtration cassette including a multilaminate array of sheets including filter sheets alternating with permeate sheet members and retentate sheet members, and a cross-flow filter device comprising a multiplicity of stacked filtration cassettes of such type (Abstract).
Benson discloses a filtration a cassette having caps/reinforcements 22 installed over filter sheet fluid openings 9, including a generic U-shaped and stainless-steel cap (Fig. 4A-4E and Fig. 5A-5D show one embodiment, Fig. 4C, illustrates a generic “U-shaped” cap; Fig. 5A is a perspective view of Fig. 4A showing a first filter sheet (20), a permeate sheet (30), and a second filter sheet (20) having capped (22) fluid openings (9); Fig. 5B is a cross - sectional view of Fig. 4A along A - A ' showing the installed cap (22); ¶¶ [0087, 0096-0098]).
Bruess and Benson are analogous arts because both are directed to compact sheet-based liquid filtration modules in which flexible membrane/filter sheets have permeate/support structures between membrane layers for water or wastewater filtration.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane pockets taught by Bruess with the U-shaped stainless steel/metal cap at an end portion of each membrane pocket as taught by Benson because such reinforcement of the filter sheet openings prevent collapse, maintains open flow channels, improve cleanability, and extend cassette life (Benson: ¶¶ [0101])
In regard to claim 2, Bruess discloses that the membrane foils 13, 14 are closed at upper and lower ends by weld or adhesive seam 15 and that strip 22 reinforces the adhesive or weld seam of the membrane pockets (Fig. 2; p. 4, lines 14-47). Benson discloses caps 22 installed over sheet-pack fluid openings (Fig. 4C, illustrates a generic “U-shaped” cap; Fig. 5A is a perspective view of Fig. 4A showing a first filter sheet (20), a permeate sheet (30), and a second filter sheet (20) having capped (22) fluid openings (9); Fig. 5B is a cross - sectional view of Fig. 4A along A - A ' showing the installed cap (22); ¶¶ [0087, 0096-0098]). It would have been obvious for one metal cap to extend lengthwise along the whole end portion of each membrane envelope because the cap is used to reinforce the end/opening region and prevent collapse along the flow-channel entrance (Benson: ¶¶ [0101]).
In regard to claim 3, Bruess discloses that the filter membrane pockets/bags (i.e., envelopes) having upper and lower ends closed by weld or adhesive seams 15 (Fig. 2; p. 3, lines 51-59). Benson discloses first and second end fluid openings in the sheet array and caps installed over sheet openings (Fig. 13B; ¶¶ [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide metal caps at top and bottom of end portions of each membrane envelope to reinforce oppose end regions and maintain the membrane elements in an aligned, open-flow configuration (Benson: ¶¶ [0101]).
In regard to claim 4, Benson discloses a generic U-shaped cap 22 having a web/top portion and two-side portions/legs for installation over the sheet pack (Fig. 4C, illustrates a generic “U-shaped” cap; Fig. 5B is a cross - sectional view of Fig. 4A along A - A ' showing the installed cap (22); ¶ [0097]) but Benson does not explicitly disclose the exact angle of 80-100o or the exact distance between the legs of 1.5- 10 mm.
With respect to the claimed angle and leg spacing of the U-shaped cap, cap structural configuration modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum U-shaped cap utility, durability and performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Benson does not explicitly disclose the exact angle of 80-100o or the exact distance between the legs of 1.5- 10 mm; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the angle and leg spacing of the U-shaped cap as claimed since the caps reinforce the sheet-pack opening, prevents collapse/folding, maintains adjacent sheets substantially parallel, and preserves open flow (Benson: ¶¶ [0101]). Additionally, Johnson Bros. (Standard U-Channel Edgings & Trim, 2019, pp. 1-5; pp. 1-2, Description and Thickness and Length sections) evidences that commercially available stainless-steel U-channel profiles conventionally include near-perpendicular leg geometry and internal openings dimension (ID) of about ¼ inch (ID: of about 6.35 mm), which falls within the claimed 1.5-10 mm range and legs are bent more or less than 90o. Thus, it would have been obvious to select near-right angle U-channel geometry and a leg spacing sized to receive the membrane-envelope edge as a predictable fit/reinforcement dimension (Benson: ¶ [0101]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 5, Benson discloses U-shaped caps made of metal including stainless steel (Benson: ¶ [00097]) but Benson does not explicitly disclose a wall thickness of 0.1-0.35 mm.
With respect to a wall thickness of the U-shaped cap, cap wall thickness modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum cap strength and performance and durability fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Benson disclose a wall thickness of 0.1-0.35 mm of the U-shaped cap; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the wall thickness of the U-shaped cap as claimed since wall thickness within the claimed range since it provides cap rigidity, resistance to deformation, sufficient reinforcement of the filtration module envelopes while minimizing bulk and preserving flow-channel access (Benson: ¶ [0101]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 6, Benson discloses a U-shaped cap 22 installed over the sheet-pack openings 9 (Fig. 4C, illustrates a generic “U-shaped” cap; Fig. 5A is a perspective view of Fig. 4A showing a first filter sheet (20), a permeate sheet (30), and a second filter sheet (20) having capped (22) fluid openings (9); Fig. 5B is a cross - sectional view of Fig. 4A along A - A ' showing the installed cap (22); ¶¶ [0097-0098]) but Benson does not explicitly disclose a cap height of 3-8 mm and a cap width of 1.7-10.7 mm.
With respect to the cap height and width dimension, size modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum cap dimension utility and performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Benson does not explicitly disclose a cap height of 3-8 mm and a cap width of 1.7-10.7 mm; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the cap height and width dimension as claimed since the cap height and width are routine fit dimensions selected based on the thickness and edge geometry of the membrane envelope being reinforced (Benson: ¶ [0101]). Johnson Bros (Standard U-Channel Edgings & Trim, 2019, pp. 1-5; pp. 1-2, Description and Thickness and Length sections and table with details of the dimension of U-channels, including stainless steel metal material) evidences commercially available stainless-steel U-channel profiles are manufactured in different widths/openings selected according to the size of the edge or sheet structure being covered and reinforced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to size the U-shaped cap within the claimed dimension ranges to fit the membrane-envelope edge while preserving open flow-channel access and reinforcement functionality (Benson: ¶ [0101]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 7, Bruess discloses filter membrane pockets (consist of two membrane foils 13,14 (Fig. 2, p 2. Lines 27-30) arranged vertically, parallel, preferably at the same distance from one another in a rigid holder (p. 1, lines 11-14) but Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact spacing range of 2-10 mm.
With respect to the filtration membrane envelopes position in the holder, position modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum filtration performance of these membrane envelopes fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact spacing range of 2-10 mm; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the filtration membrane envelopes position as claimed since spacing between adjacent membrane envelope is a result-effective variable affecting hydraulic flow, bubble flow fouling control cleanability and packing density as evidenced by Cui et al., (Fundamentals of Pressure-Driven Membrane Separation Processes, 2021, Membrane Technology, pp. 1-18; p. 8, first paragraph, line 1 thru second paragraph, line 19) and further provide evidence that flat-sheet membrane modules conventionally employ channel gaps approximately 0.5-10 mm. The claimed 2-10 mm spacing falls within known workable membrane channel spacing ranges conventionally selected according to flow and fouling requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a spacing within the claimed ranged to maintain inter-membrane liquid/gas flow while preserving compact module packing (Bruess: p. 3, lines 13-22; and as evidenced by Cui et al., Fundamentals of Pressure-Driven Membrane Separation Processes, 2021, Membrane Technology, pp. 1-18; p. 8, first paragraph, line 1 thru second paragraph, line 19). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 8 and 9, Bruess discloses a large number of filter membrane pockets combined into one module and arranged according to the size of the box/holder 10 (Fig. 2; p.4, lines 49-52) but Bruess does not discloses the exact membrane-envelope width, length, and surface-area ranges.
With respect to the exact membrane-envelope width, length, and surface-area ranges, dimension/size modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum dimension utility and performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bruess does not discloses the exact membrane-envelope width, length, and surface-area ranges: the filtration membrane envelopes have a width between 630 and 690 mm and a length between 1000 and 1060 mm and a surface of each of the filtration membrane envelopes is between 1.26 and 1.46 (claim 8); and the filtration membrane envelopes have a width between 630 and 690 mm and a length between 400 and 600 mm and a surface of each of the filtration envelopes is between 0.50 and 0.83 (claim 9); however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the membrane-envelope width, length, and surface-area ranges as claimed since the size selection optimization for flat membrane pockets are selected according to desired filtration area which influence module footprint (filtration area/space ratio, i.e., in turn influences system capacity, cost, and scalability) and mechanical stability of the membrane films (Bruess: p. 4, lines 44-47). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 10, Bruess discloses that a large number of filter membrane pockets can be combined into one production step (p. 4, lines 49-52) but Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed numerical range of 50-120 filtration membrane envelopes.
With respect to the claimed packing density of the module, packing density modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum packing density filtration performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed numerical range of 50-120 filtration membrane envelopes; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the packing density of the filter module since the number of envelopes in a module is a result-effective variable affecting membrane area that influence biofouling, packing density, module footprint, and treatment capacity because membrane modules are commonly grouped into cassettes and that increasing membrane packing density, and membrane quantity increases treatment capacity while reducing system footprint as evidenced by Al-Asheh et al., (Membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: A review, 2021, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, pp. 1-15; p. 9, 4.3 Classification of fouling section, line 1, left column thru 4.5.1. Membrane characteristics, line 29). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 11, Bruess discloses a holder/container 10 forming the outer boundary of the filtration module and laterally enclosing the filter membrane pockets (Fig. 1a; p. 4, lines 56-58; p. 7, claim 4, lines 36-37) but does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed outer width between 686 and 746 mm, and an outer length between 706 and 766 mm.
With respect to the claimed outer width and outer length ranges of the filtration module, module configuration modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bruess does not expressly disclose the exact claimed outer width and outer length ranges; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the outer width and outer length of the filter module since filter module dimensions are routine engineering variables selected according to the number of membrane envelopes to be employed to maximize packing density and optimize spacing between membrane envelopes to improve treatment footprint efficiency as taught Bruess (p. 2, lines 5-8). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 12, Bruess discloses multiple membrane pockets arranged in a compact rigid holder and states that the filter membrane pockets provide an optimal filtration area/space ratio (p. 4, lines 32-47). Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed packing density of the module.
With respect to the claimed packing density of the module, packing density modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum configuration performance fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bruess does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed packing density of the module; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the packing density of the filter module because a packing density range selection helps optimize filtration area and module compactness while maintaining workable inter-membrane flow and cleanability (Bruess: p. 2, lines 5-8; and as evidenced Pawloski (Scalability and Design of a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, 2016, The University of Guelph, pp. 1-207; p. 26, second paragraph, line 1 thru p. 27, line 3). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 13, Bruess expressly discloses a plurality of holders, each equipped with filter membrane pockets, are arranged one above another (p. 3, lines 24-25). Therefore, forming double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple deck systems from same-size modules would have been obvious to increase capacity in a modular and predictable manner (Bruess: p. 3, lines 24-25).
In regard to claim 15, Bruess discloses use of the filtration module for purification of wastewater, which liquid flowing through spaces between adjacent filter membrane pockets and filtrate removed through openings 21 and suction channels/evacuation lines 20 (Fig. 2, Abstract; p. 1, lines 11-14).
In regard to claim 17, Benson expressly discloses stainless steel “U” caps and caps made of metals including stainless steel (¶ [0097]).
In regard to claim 18, Bruess discloses purification of wastewater; therefore, the liquids include water or wastewater (p. 1, lines 11-14).
Claim 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Bruess as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doyen et al., (US 2008/0164208 A1, hereinafter as “Doyen”).
In regard to claim 14, Bruess discloses membrane pockets having a flexible, liquid permeable core 16 (Fig. 3; p. 4 lines 14-20) and/or core elements 17, 18 (Fig. 6; p. 4, lines 14-20), and 19 (Fig. 5; p. 4, lines 14-20) between membrane foils 13, and 14 (Figs., 2, p. 4, lines 32-47).
However, Bruess does not explicitly disclose a 3D spacer fabric interposed between two membrane layers.
Doyen teaches and discloses a membrane comprising a permeate channel consisting of a 3D spacer fabric having upper and lower fabric surfaces spaced apart by monofilament threads, the permeate channel being interposed between two membranes layers 12, 13 (Fig. 2, Abstract).
Bruess and Doyen are analogous arts because both are directed to flat membrane-pocket/envelope filtration structure for water or wastewater filtration in which opposed membrane layers require an internal spacer/permeate path to prevent collapse and permit filtrate removal. Bruess uses membrane foils with a liquid-permeable core inside each pocket, while Doyen teaches a 3D spacer fabric between membrane layers forming an integrated permeate channel.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bruess’s flexible liquid-permeable core between the membrane foils with a 3D spacer fabric taught by Doyen because it provides an integrated permeate channel and structural support between membrane layers as taught by Doyen (¶ [0010]).
In regard to claim 16, Bruess discloses that an adhesive connection may include a liquid permeable core and membrane, making it possible to backwash the filter membrane pockets by reversing the direction of filtrate flow (p. 3, lines 4-11).
Doyen further discloses that its membrane can withstand backwash pressure of at least 10 bar (¶ [0033]) which overlaps the recited at least 100 mbar (0.1 bar). Since the claimed backwash pressure of at least 100 mbar (0.1 bar) overlaps the backwash pressure of at least 10 bar taught by Doyen, the range recited in claim 16 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 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, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights