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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it consists of a long run-on sentence essentially identical to Claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Cross-Reference section should also include the PCT application number and filing date, as well as the WIPO publication number and date.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “long” should read “along”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “between inlet coupling” is missing an article like “the”. 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, 10, 12, 14 and their dependent claims 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.
Claim 1 recites in the preamble of the claim “a reverse osmosis system forming part of a reverse osmosis stage of a desalination plant”. However, the body of the claim does not discuss the “reverse osmosis stage” or “desalination plant” and how the various parts of the claimed invention relate to these components, making it unclear if these components are part of the claimed invention, or not.
Claim 10 recites in the preamble of the claim “a permeate outlet segment used as an interface between a reverse osmosis unit and a conduit”. However, the body of the claim does not discuss the “reverse osmosis unit” or “conduit”, making it unclear if these components are part of the claimed invention, or not.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first connecting end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a cross-sectional area of the permeate outlet segment is less than that of the elbow”. It is not clear how a direct part of the “permeate outlet segment”, “the elbow”, has a distinct cross-section apart from the overall “permeate outlet segment”, which already includes this “elbow”. Examiner interprets a part of the permeate outlet segment to have a different cross-section from the elbow, not the permeate outlet segment in its entirety, which also includes said elbow.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volker et al., (“Volker”, US 2021/0362093), in view of Theron et al., (“Theron”, US 2011/0049034).
Regarding Claims 1-5 & 9, Volker discloses a reverse osmosis system forming part of a reverse osmosis stage, (See Abstract, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0018]), the reverse osmosis system comprising: a reverse osmosis unit having a reverse osmosis membrane housed in a pressure vessel extending longitudinally along an axis, (Module Block 54 with Membranes 13/15 within, See Figures 1 & 2.5, See paragraphs [0032], [0018]), and having a port extending along the axis, (Permeate Collecting Pipe 62 and Valve 64, See Figure 2.5, See paragraph [0033]); a conduit, (Permeate Connector 65, See Figure 2.6, See paragraph [0037]); and a permeate outlet segment connecting the port to the conduit, (Sample Removing Block 75 into which Collector 62/Valve 64 and Connector 65 join at opposite ends, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]), the permeate outlet segment having: a first connecting end hydraulically connected to the port of the reverse osmosis unit, (Collector 62/Valve 64 carry permeate into Block 75 at bottom side, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]); a second connecting end hydraulically connected to the conduit, (Connector 65 carry permeate out of Block 75 at lateral side, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]); an elbow between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, (Sample Removal Block 75 has internal volume shaped like elbow, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6); and an inspection port stemming from the elbow, (Sample Removal Port 41 in Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037]).
Volker does not explicitly disclose the inspection port being aligned with the first connecting end along the axis, or use for a desalination water treatment plant.
Theron discloses the inspection port being aligned with the first connecting end along the axis, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron), in use for a desalination water treatment plant, (See paragraph [0006], [0125], [0138], Theron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reverse osmosis system of Volker by incorporating the inspection port being aligned with the first connecting end along the axis as in Theron in order to provide an inspection port “adapted to move relative to the vessel to permit testing of the permeate”, (See paragraph [0043], Theron), in a manner “reducing the number of components for transport and assembly” and “further reducing the footprint of the system”, (See paragraph [0040], Theron).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The reverse osmosis system of claim 1, wherein the inspection port is defined by an inspection section stemming from the elbow of the permeate outlet segment along a port axis, (Sample Removal Port 41 in Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037], Volker), the port axis being coaxial with a central axis of the permeate outlet segment at the first connecting end, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
Claim 3: The reverse osmosis system of claim 1 wherein the permeate outlet segment has a straight section extending from the first connecting end to the elbow, the inspection port being coaxial with the straight section, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
Claim 4: The reverse osmosis system of any one of claimlsi1ff to 31 wherein the elbow defines a 90 degrees angle, (Sample Removing Block 75 into which Collector 62/Valve 64 and Connector 65 join at different ends (bottom and lateral) forming a right angle, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037], Volker).
Claim 5: The reverse osmosis system of claim 2, wherein a cross-sectional area of the inspection section is less than that of the elbow, (Sample Removal Port 41 is smaller than internal volume of Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037], Volker; both Quill 34 and Valve 32 are smaller than internal volume of Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
Claim 9: The reverse osmosis system of claim 1, wherein the permeate outlet segment is a monolithic body defining the inspection port, (Sample Removal Port 41 is part of Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037], Volker).
Regarding Claims 10-14, Volker discloses a permeate outlet segment used as an interface between a reverse osmosis unit and a conduit, (Sample Removing Block 75 into which Collector 62/Valve 64 of RO Unit 54 and Permeate Connector 65 join at opposite ends, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]), comprising: an inlet, (Collector 62/Valve 64 carry permeate into Block 75 at bottom side, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]); an outlet, (Connector 65 carry permeate out of Block 75 at lateral side, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037]); an elbow between the inlet and the outlet, (Sample Removal Block 75 has internal volume shaped like elbow, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6); and an inspection port at the elbow, (Sample Removal Port 41 in Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037]).
Volker does not explicitly disclose the inspection port being aligned with the inlet.
Theron discloses the inspection port being aligned with the first connecting end along the axis, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reverse osmosis system of Volker by incorporating the inspection port being aligned with the first connecting end along the axis as in Theron in order to provide an inspection port “adapted to move relative to the vessel to permit testing of the permeate”, (See paragraph [0043], Theron), in a manner “reducing the number of components for transport and assembly” and “further reducing the footprint of the system”, (See paragraph [0040], Theron).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: The permeate outlet segment of claim 10, wherein the inspection port is defined by an inspection section stemming from the elbow of the permeate outlet segment along an axis, (Sample Removal Port 41 in Block 75, See Figure 2 & 2.5, See paragraph [0037], Volker), the axis being coaxial with a central axis of the permeate outlet segment at a first connecting end, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
Claim 12: The permeate outlet segment of claim 10, a straight section extending from the first connecting end to the elbow, the inspection port being coaxial with the straight section, (Sampling Valve 32 aligned in longitudinal direction with first connecting end of Permeate Connector 31 to Permeate Chamber 28, See Figure 2 & 3, See paragraph [0128], Theron).
Claim 13: The permeate outlet segment of any one of claim 10, wherein the elbow defines a 90 degrees angle, (Sample Removing Block 75 into which Collector 62/Valve 64 and Connector 65 join at different ends (bottom and lateral) forming a right angle, See Figures 2.5 & 2.6, See paragraph [0037], Volker).
Claim 14: The permeate outlet segment of claim 13, wherein a cross-sectional area of the permeate outlet segment is less than that of the elbow, (Ports into and out of Permeate Chamber 28 are smaller than internal volume of Permeate Chamber 28 itself, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0127] & [0128], Theron).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volker et al., (“Volker”, US 2021/0362093), in view of Theron et al., (“Theron”, US 2011/0049034), in further view of Keefer et al., (“Keefer”, WO 98/23361 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-8, modified Volker discloses the reverse osmosis system of claim 1, wherein the conduit defines a flow passage, (Permeate Connector 65, See Figure 2.6, See paragraph [0037], Volker), but does not disclose a flow circulating area of the flow passage decreasing from a conduit inlet to a conduit outlet.
Keefer discloses a flow circulating area of the flow passage decreasing from a conduit inlet to a conduit outlet, (Tube 505 is wider at inlet and narrows to a smaller diameter at outlet, See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reverse osmosis system of modified Volker by incorporating a flow circulating area of the flow passage decreasing from a conduit inlet to a conduit outlet as in Keefer in order to create a “pressure difference…to allow flow of some permeate fluid…to enter” the flow passage, (See page 33, lines 28-35, Keefer).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 7: The reverse osmosis system of claim 6, wherein the flow circulating area decreases along a transition section of the conduit, the transition section being free of a joint, (Tube 505 is wider at initial opening and converges seamlessly to a narrower diameter, See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
Claim 8: The reverse osmosis system of claim 6, wherein the flow circulating area decreases along a frustoconical section of the conduit, (Tube 505 is wider at initial opening and converges seamlessly to a narrower diameter (frustoconically), See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer et al., (“Keefer”, WO 98/23361 A1), in view of Wynn et al., (“Wynn”, US 2008/0011157).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Keefer discloses a water treatment facility, (See Figure 1 and See page 13, lines 4-12), comprising: a filtration unit hydraulically connected to a source of water to be filtered, the filtration unit having a port to allow water to flow therethrough, (Process Train 2 with Modules of Membrane Elements 23, See Figure 1, See page 13, line 37, page 14, lines 1-17); and a conduit in fluid flow communication with the port, the conduit extending from an inlet to an outlet, (Tube 505 mounted to Valve 511 and Product Connector 345, inherently has an entrance/exit, See Figure 13, See page 32, lines 36-37, page 33, lines 1-26), the conduit having: an inlet coupling, (Tube 505 mounted to Valve 511 and Product Connector 345 via Fitting 510, inherently has an entrance/exit, See Figure 13, See page 32, lines 36-37, page 33, lines 1-26), and a flow passage between the inlet coupling and the outlet, the flow passage having a transition portion forming a change of flow circulating area between inlet coupling and the outlet, (Tube 505 is wider at inlet and narrows to a smaller diameter at outlet, See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
Keefer does not explicitly disclose that the conduit is a flexible conduit, or the outlet having an outlet coupling.
Wynn discloses that the conduit is a flexible conduit, (Outlet pipes 402a-c/402d-g, See Figure 2 & 5, See paragraphs [0136]-[0138], Wynn), and the outlet having an outlet coupling, (Fittings 404a-g for each outlet pipe, See Figure 2 & 5, See paragraphs [0135]-[0138], Wynn).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water treatment facility of Keefer by incorporating that the conduit is a flexible conduit as in Wynn in order to “facilitate connection of the permeate connection system to the ends of the permeate collection pipes and to the permeate port”, (See paragraph [0138], Wynn).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 19: The water treatment facility of claim 18, wherein the transition portion of the flow passage has a frustoconical shape, (Tube 505 is wider at initial opening and converges seamlessly to a narrower diameter (frustoconically), See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
Claim 20: The water treatment facility of claim 18, wherein the flexible conduit is free of a joint along the transition portion, (Tube 505 is wider at initial opening and converges seamlessly to a narrower diameter, See Figure 13, See page 33, lines 6-36, Keefer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights