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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-17 are currently pending
Claim 18 is currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-10 are currently canceled
Claims 11-18 are new
Claims 11-17 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 08/23/2024 and 02/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 11-17 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 states “the first layer, wherein the second layer” and instead should state “the nonwoven first layer, wherein the spunbonded second layer” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the first layer” and instead should state “the nonwoven first layer” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the first layer” and instead should state “the nonwoven first layer” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the second layer” and instead should state “the spunbonded second layer” for further clarity. 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 11-17 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 11 recites the limitation "the thickness” on line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-17 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the thickness” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thickness” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 16 recites the limitation “the film” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a polymer film’ as recited on line 12 of claim 11, or a different film?
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-21 and 23-30 of co-pending Application No. 18/712977 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broad enough and further disclosed by claims 17-21 and 23-30 of co-pending Application No. 18/712977.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. 2014/0326658 A1) (hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Singh teaches a membrane distiller for producing purified water (see FIG. 1, a membrane distillation (‘MD’) system 100) (see FIG. 2, a triple layer composite nanofiber membrane 200) (see FIG. 3, a membrane distillation (‘MD’) system 300 including a triple layer composite nanofiber membrane 200) (see paragraphs 1, 10, 44, 46-47, 50, 56 and 61), the membrane distiller comprising:
an evaporation side (see FIG. 1, a distilland 110) (see paragraph 46),
a condensation side (see FIG. 1, a distillate area 130) (see paragraph 46), and
a membrane separating the evaporation side and the condensation side from each other (see FIG. 1, a membrane 105 separating the distilland 110 and the distillate area 130) (see FIGS. 2-3, a membrane 200) (see paragraphs 46-47), wherein the membrane has a pore size equal to or less than 1000 nanometres (see paragraphs 13, 18, 47-50 and 58),
wherein the membrane is a multi-layer polymer membrane (see FIGS. 2-3, a membrane 200) comprising a nonwoven first layer having a pore size equal to or less than 1000 nanometres (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) and a spunbonded second layer that is laminated to the first layer (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61), wherein the second layer is facing the condensation side (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61),
wherein the membrane distiller comprises a cooling side located adjacent the condensation side (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61), wherein a polymer film separates the cooling side and the condensation side from each other (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see FIG. 3, a cold surface 125 including a cooled flowing liquid 115) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61), the thickness of the polymer film being equal to or more than 0,08 millimetre and equal to or less than 0,25 millimetre (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Although Singh teaches a membrane distiller including an evaporation side, a condensation side, and a cooling side, one may broadly interpret that Singh does not explicitly teach an evaporation chamber, a condensation chamber, and a cooling chamber, as recited in new, independent claim 11. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distiller system including the evaporation side, the condensation side, and the cooling side of Singh to include as chambers for optimization purposes and to achieve the same desirable result of having separate sections/areas/regions to perform the distillation effectively and efficiently (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 12:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the thickness of the membrane is equal to or more than 0,1 millimetres and equal to or less than 0,4 millimetres, preferably equal to or more than 0,2 millimetres and equal to or less than 0,3 millimetres (see FIG. 1, a membrane 105 separating the distilland 110 and the distillate area 130) (see FIGS. 2-3, a membrane 200) (see paragraphs 13, 18, 46-50 and 58).
Regarding Claim 13:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the pore size of the first layer of the membrane is equal to or less than 750 nanometres, preferably equal to or less than 500 nanometres (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 14:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the first layer of the membrane comprises a fluoropolymer, such as polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE] or polyvinylidene fluoride [PVDF] (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18-20, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 15:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the second layer of the membrane comprises a thermoplastic polymer, such as polypropylene [PP] (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18-20, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 16:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the thickness of the film is equal to or more than 0,1 millimetre and equal to or less than 0,2 millimetre (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 17:
Singh teaches the membrane distiller according to claim 11, wherein the polymer film comprises a fluoropolymer, such as polyvinylidene fluoride [PVDF] (see FIGS. 2-3, a hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber layer 205, a hydrophobic microporous middle layer 215, and/or a hydrophilic backing layer 210) (see paragraphs 10, 12-13, 15, 18-20, 44, 47-50, 56, 58 and 61).
Other References Considered
Chu et al. (U.S. 2020/0316504 A1) (hereinafter “Chu”) teaches a nanostructured fibrous membrane for membrane distillation.
MacCallum et al. (U.S. 2017/0073250 A1) (hereinafter “Mac”) teaches an ionomer-membrane water processing apparatus.
Torberger (U.S. 4,391,676) (hereinafter “Torberger”) teaches an arrangement for passing a first liquid.
Cheng (U.S. 4,265,713) (hereinafter “Cheng”) teaches a method and apparatus for distillation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights