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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 17-21, 23, and 27-30 and canceled claim 22. Claims 17-21 and 23-30 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims (in conjunction with the arguments concerning the 112(f) interpretations of the “purified water dispenser tool” have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. However, following further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections over the prior art previously relied upon. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretations have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has persuasively argued that there is sufficient corresponding structure in the specification for the claimed “purified water dispenser tool” in the form of “a manually operated nozzle/handle or an automatically controlled nozzle”. Accordingly, the 112(f) interpretation of the claimed “purified water dispenser tool” has been updated.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Accordingly, said objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has persuasively argued that there is sufficient corresponding structure in the specification for the claimed “purified water dispenser tool” in the form of “a manually operated nozzle/handle or an automatically controlled nozzle”. Accordingly, the 112(f) interpretation of the claimed “purified water dispenser tool” has been updated, and the 112(b) rejection of said limitation withdrawn.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the other 112(b) rejections of record. Accordingly, said rejections have been withdrawn.
However, following further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Khalifa does not teach or suggest a system wherein “the ‘polymer film’ that is located between the ‘cooling chamber’ and the ‘condensation chamber’ is ‘connected to a second rigid polymer frame’”
More specifically, Applicant argues the following:
1) Khalifa teaches a metal divider 126 rather than a polymer divider as is required by the claims, and does not disclose or suggest that the divider may be replaced by a polymer film”; and
2) Khalifa allegedly does not teach that the divider 126 is connected to a rigid polymer frame, but instead teaches that the divider 126 is sandwiched between gaskets/seals 5 and 7.
Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that this argument is made against Khalifa individually, whereas the claims are rejected over Khalifa in combination with several secondary references. As is particularly important with respect to the argument concerning the divider 126 of Khalifa being metal as opposed to polymer, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument concerning the divider 126 of Khalifa being metal as opposed to polymer, Khalifa teaches a film (thermally conductive divider) 126 which separates the cooling chamber 118 and the condensation chamber 110 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 9-11).
Examiner acknowledges that Khalifa teaches that the diver 126 of Khalifa is made of metal. Examiner further acknowledges that there is no explicit teaching or suggestion in Khalifa the divider may be replaced with a polymer divider. However, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The 103 rejections address the claimed polymer film on the basis that it would be obvious to modify Khalifa in view of Gore by relacing the film (divider) 126 of Khalifa with a plastic film divider.
To elaborate, the film 126 of Khalifa is a heat exchange wall (“thermally conductive divider”) which is desirably made from a thermally conductive material (Khalifa: Column 10 Lines 35-65). It is known in the art that polymer materials can be used to form heat exchange walls. For example, Gore teaches a membrane distillation module having a heat exchange wall (water vapor impermeable sheet) 12 which may be formed from a polymer (plastic) film (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4 Line 45-Column 5 Line 2). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, it is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Gore by replacing the film in Khalifa with a polymer film, in order to obtain a predictably functional system wherein the polymer film performs its role as a heat exchange wall with predictable success.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claimed plastic film is obvious over the combination of Khalifa and Gore.
Regarding the argument that Khalifa teaches that the divider 126 is sandwiched between gaskets/seals 5 and 7 rather than rigid polymer frames, Examiner first notes that Khalifa expressly discloses a first polymer frame (Column 18 Lines 46-48). This disclosure was relied upon in the 103 rejections of claims 17 and 30 set forth in the 1/2/2026 Non-Final Rejection to teach the first rigid polymer frame.
Regardless, the rejection of claim 22 as set forth in the previous Office Action was made on the following grounds:
The membrane distiller of modified Khalifa may further comprise a rigid second frame (coolant channel plate) having a first surface and a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the film 126 is connected to a first surface of the second frame covering the central aperture, and wherein second frame (coolant channel plate) may be a polymer such as PVC or HDPE (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52).
Examiner acknowledges that teachings specifically referencing Figure 5 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a first polymer frame, whereas teachings specifically referencing Figure 8 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a second polymer frame. For the sake of argument, even if Khalifa does not fairly teach an embodiment wherein both the first and second frames are polymer frames, Khalifa would nevertheless suggest such an embodiment in at least the following manner.
Khalifa at least suggests an embodiment comprising both a first frame (the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8) and a second frame (the coolant channel plate 8 as shown in Figure 8), wherein the second frame may be made from a polymer material (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52). Although the first frame (gasket) 5 is not expressly taught to be made of plastic, the fact that the second frame may be made from a polymer material, e.g. PVC, HDPE (Column 14 Lines 42-52), would suggest that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the first frame “gasket” 5 as well.
Khalifa further teaches that a vessel 102 containing the evaporation chamber 104 and the condensation chamber 110 may be formed from various polymeric materials, high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6, especially column 5 line 67-Column 6 Line 6). It is not abundantly clear whether the arrangement comprising the plurality of frames as illustrated in Figure 8 is regarded by Khalifa as a specific embodiment of the vessel or as an alternative to the vessel 102. Regardless, in either case, the fact that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the vessel 102 further suggests that they would be suitable for use in constructing the first frame (i.e. the gasket as shown in Figure 8), especially considering that polymer materials are also taught to be suitable for the construction of the additional frames shown in Figure 8.
(pages 13 and 14 of the 1/2/2026 Non-Final Rejection; emphasis added)
These grounds of rejection are now applied to independent claims 17 and 30 as amended. Thus, in the interest of simplicity Examiner’s position regarding claimed first and second plates can be summarized as follows: Khalifa teaches or at least suggests an embodiment comprising a first ridged polymer frame, i.e. the plastic frame disclosed in comprising both a rigid first frame, i.e. the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8, and a rigid second frame, i.e. the coolant channel plate 8 as shown in Figure 8, wherein the second frame may be made from a polymer material (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52). Though the first frame (gasket) 5 is not expressly taught to be made from a polymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the first frame (gasket) 5 from a polymer.
The gasket 5 can be reasonably characterized as a frame, as it is structurally and functionally identical to the first frame as claimed. It is further noted that said gasket can be reasonably characterized as “rigid” at least in that it is sufficiently rigid to hold its shape.
It is acknowledged that a gasket 7 is positioned between the second frame (cooling channel plate) 8 and the film (divider) 126. However, the claims merely required that the film “is connected either to the first surface of the second polymer frame covering the central aperture or to the second surface of the second polymer frame covering the central aperture.” There is no requirement that the film is directly connected to the first surface or the second surface of the second polymer frame, so an indirect connection like that of the film (divider) 126 to the second frame (cooling channel plate) 8 via gasket 7 is sufficient to satisfy the language of claims 17 and 30.
In view of the forgoing, Examiner respectfully maintains that Khalifa at least suggests a system comprising both a first polymer frame and a second polymer frame as required by the independent claims.
Applicant has argued that the other cited references fail to teach or suggest the alleged deficiencies of Khalifa. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
With respect to Khalifa’s deficiency concerning the claimed plastic film, Examiner respectfully reiterates that this deficiency is cured by the Gore reference. In other words, the claimed plastic film is obvious over Khalifa when taken in view of Gore. For details, see the discussion of Gore above and/or the 103 rejections of claims 17 and 30 below.
With respect to Khalifa’s alleged deficiency concerning the first and second rigid polymer frames, Khalifa is not deficient as alleged. Thus, Applicant’s argument concerning the secondary references is moot with respect to this feature.
Applicant’s citation of In re Fritch is acknowledged. Examiner respectfully contents that Applicant’s citation carries little weight in view of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are described below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “water supply unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “water supply” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 30 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation is disclosed at length on pages 7-9 of Applciant’s specification.
Accordingly, the claimed “water supply unit” has been interpreted as a water supply conduit and at least one of: a heater, a first buffer tank, a second buffer tank, a pressure regulator, a second water supply conduit, a pressure regulator valve, a water return conduit; as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “purified water dispenser tool” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “purified water dispenser” coupled with functional language “tool” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 30 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “The purified water dispenser tool 5 may be a manually operated nozzle/handle or an automatically controlled nozzle,” (page 5 Lines 12-13).
Accordingly, the claimed “purified water dispenser tool” has been interpreted as a nozzle or handle; as well as equivalents thereof.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites dependency on canceled claim 22.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment and made over the prior art previously relied upon.
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.
Claim(s) 17-21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifa (US 10,596,521) in view of Singh et al. (US 9,751,052), hereafter referred to as Singh, and Cheng et al. (US 4,316,772), hereafter referred to as Cheng, and Gore et al. (US 4,545,862), hereafter referred to as Gore.
With regard to claims 17-21: Khalifa teaches a membrane distiller for producing purified water (abstract, Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6), the membrane distiller comprising:
An evaporation chamber (feed zone) 104 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5, 6, 9, and 10).
A condensation chamber (distillate zone) 110 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5, 6, 9, and 10).
A cooling chamber (coolant zone) 118 located adjacent the condensation chamber 110, wherein a film (thermally conductive divider) 126 separates the cooling chamber 118 and the condensation chamber 110 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 9-11).
And a membrane 124 separating the evaporation chamber 104 and the condensation chamber from one another (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6, Column 7 Lines 14-67, Column 8), wherein the membrane 124 may have an average pore size in a preferred range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 30-35).
The membrane may be a multi-layer polymer membrane comprising: a first layer (hydrophobic layer), which may be constructed of PFDF; and a second layer (polymeric substrate), which may be constructed of polypropylene, among other thermoplastic polymers; wherein the second layer is laminated to first layer (i.e. the first layer (hydrophobic layer) is disposed on the second layer (polymeric substrate); and wherein the thickness of said membrane may be in a preferred range of 105-160 micrometers (0.105-0.160 mm) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 14-30 and 48-54).
As mentioned above, the membrane 124 may have an average pore size in a preferred range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 30-35). Bearing this in mind, though the pore size of specifically the first layer is not explicitly taught, it is implicit in Khalifa that specifically the first layer may have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers).
In the unlikely alternative, the teachings of Khalifa would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least suggest that specifically the first layer may have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers). Furthermore, membrane pore size (including pore size of individual membrane layers) is well understood to be a result effective variable in membrane distillation. "[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the event that it is not implicit in Khalifa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalifa by configuring the first layer (hydrophobic layer) of the membrane to have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers), in order to obtain a predictably functional membrane which is congruent in scope with the teachings and suggestions of Khalifa.
The membrane distiller of Khalifa may further comprise a rigid first frame (e.g. the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8 and/or the frame as illustrated in Figure 5) having a first surface and a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein at least a portion of the condensation chamber is constituted by the central aperture, and wherein the membrane is connected to a first surface of the first frame covering the central aperture (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52, Figure 5, Column 18 Lines 40-60), wherein the first frame may be a polymer first frame, i.e. a frame formed from plastic (Figure 5, Column 18 Lines 40-60).
Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the first layer (hydrophobic layer) is nonwoven. Additionally, Khalifa is silent to the second layer (polymeric substrate) being spun bound.
However, it must be noted that Khalifa also does not teach that the first layer is woven. Furthermore, Khalifa teaches that the membrane may have an open spongy morphology (Column 7 Lines 30-45, especially lines 34-40). A membrane which is woven would not be regarded as having a “spongy morphology”. Accordingly, Khalifa’s teachings would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first layer (hydrophobic layer) should be, or at least may be, nonwoven.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to form hydrophobic hydrophobic layers of composite membranes such that they are nonwoven. For example, Singh teaches a composite membrane for membrane distillation applications, the membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer (nanofiber layer) 205 which is electrospun (abstract, Figure 2, Column 6 Lines 30-45). It is understood that an electrospun membrane layer is nonwoven as is clearly illustrated in Figure 5 of Singh (Figure 5, Column 8 Lines 15-32).
It is also known in the art to form polymeric substrate membrane layers by spin bonding. For example, Singh teaches the membrane to comprise a polymeric substrate layer (backing layer) 210 which may be spunbonded (“spun bound”) (abstract, Figure 2, Column 6 Lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalifa in view of Singh by configuring the first layer (the hydrophobic layer) to be nonwoven, and configuring the second layer (the polymeric substrate) to be spunbonded in order to obtain a predictably functional composite membrane.
Modified Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the second layer is facing the condensation chamber or the first surface of the first frame.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that because the membrane is attached to the first surface of the first frame and, the first frame (the central aperture thereof) defines the condensation chamber, if the second layer of the membrane faces the condensation chamber, it will also necessarily face the first surface of the first frame.
It is notoriously well-known in the art that, when a composite membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer and a polymeric substrate layer is used in a membrane distillation device, the hydrophobic layer should face the evaporation chamber of said device, leaving the substrate layer to face the condensation chamber of said device. For example, Cheng et al. (US 4,316,772) teaches a composite membrane for use in membrane distillation (Columns 1 and 2), the membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer 36 adjacent a distilland 12 (i.e. a solution to be distilled) and a hydrophilic layer 38 adjacent a distillate 14 (Figure 3, Column 2 Lines 25-45, Column 6 Lines 8-18). Cheng teaches that “In applications such as desalination of salt water, water-logging is prevented by the hydrophilic layer adjacent to the salt water, and continuous evaporation/condensation occurs within the pores of the hydrophobic layer,” (Column 2 Lines 37-41). Cheng also teaches that “The hydrophilic layer adjacent to the fresh water increases the fresh water production rate when compared to similar systems with no hydrophilic layer adjacent to the distillate” (Column 2 Lines 31-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Cheng by arranging the membrane such that the first layer faces the evaporation chamber, and such that the second layer faces the condensation chamber and thus the first surface of the first frame, in order to obtain a system wherein the first hydrophobic layer is adjacent the distilland so as to prevent water-logging.
Modified Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the film is a polymer film.
However, the film 126 of Khalifa is a heat exchange wall (“thermally conductive divider”) which is desirably made from a thermally conductive material (Khalifa: Column 10 Lines 35-65). It is known in the art that polymer materials can be used to form heat exchange walls. For example, Gore teaches a membrane distillation module having a heat exchange wall (water vapor impermeable sheet) 12 which may be formed from a polymer (plastic) film (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4 Line 45-Column 5 Line 2). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, it is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Gore by replacing the film in Khalifa with a polymer film, in order to obtain a predictably functional system wherein the polymer film performs its role as a heat exchange wall with predictable success.
The membrane distiller of modified Khalifa may further comprise a rigid second frame (coolant channel plate) having a first surface and a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the film 126 is connected to a first surface of the second frame covering the central aperture, and wherein second frame (coolant channel plate) may be a polymer such as PVC or HDPE (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52).
Examiner acknowledges that teachings specifically referencing Figure 5 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a first polymer frame, whereas teachings specifically referencing Figure 8 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a second polymer frame. For the sake of argument, even if Khalifa does not fairly teach an embodiment wherein both the first and second frames are polymer frames, Khalifa would nevertheless suggest such an embodiment in at least the following manner.
Khalifa at least suggests an embodiment comprising both a first frame (the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8) and a second frame (the coolant channel plate 8 as shown in Figure 8), wherein the second frame may be made from a polymer material (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52). Although the first frame (gasket) 5 is not expressly taught to be made of plastic, the fact that the second frame may be made from a polymer material, e.g. PVC, HDPE (Column 14 Lines 42-52), would suggest that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the first frame “gasket” 5 as well.
Khalifa further teaches that a vessel 102 containing the evaporation chamber 104 and the condensation chamber 110 may be formed from various polymeric materials, high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6, especially column 5 line 67-Column 6 Line 6). It is not abundantly clear whether the arrangement comprising the plurality of frames as illustrated in Figure 8 is regarded by Khalifa as a specific embodiment of the vessel or as an alternative to the vessel 102. Regardless, in either case, the fact that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the vessel 102 further suggests that they would be suitable for use in constructing the first frame (i.e. the gasket as shown in Figure 8), especially considering that polymer materials are also taught to be suitable for the construction of the additional frames shown in Figure 8.
With regard to claim 23: Modified Khalifa is silent to the film having a thickness of 0.08-0.25 mm.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the film is a result effective variable, as is confirmed by Gore, which teaches that the plastic film 12 therein should be “thin” (Column 4 Lines 60-65). "[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Gore by optimizing the thickness of the plastic film, i.e. such that it has a thickness of 0.08-0.25 mm, in order to obtain a predictably functional system wherein the plastic film performs well as a heat exchange wall.
With regard to claims 24-26: Modified Khalifa does not explicitly teach:
i) an elastic first gasket having a first surface, a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, at least a portion of the evaporation chamber being constituted by the central aperture, wherein an inlet extends to the central aperture, and wherein an outlet extends from the central aperture;
ii) an elastic second gasket having a first surface, a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, at least a portion of the condensation chamber being constituted by the central aperture, an outlet extending from the central aperture; and
iii) an elastic third gasket having a first surface, a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, at least a portion of the cooling chamber being constituted by the central aperture, an inlet extending to the central aperture, and wherein an outlet extends from the central aperture.
However, these limitations would be respectively satisfied merely by adding an elastic sealing gasket between the evaporation chamber and the membrane or an end plate, an elastic sealing gasket between the condensing chamber/first frame and the film or the membrane, and an elastic sealing gasket between the cooling chamber/second frame and the film.
Khalifa suggests the use of gaskets for sealing various portions of the membrane distiller (Column 6 Lines 40-50, Column 7 Lines 9-14). Khalifa indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with gaskets (Column 6 Lines 40-50). Khalifa further suggests that such sealing gaskets can be made of rubber (Column 7 Lines 9-14), thereby implicitly suggesting that said gaskets should be elastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa by adding an elastic sealing gasket between the evaporation chamber and the membrane or an end plate, an elastic sealing gasket between the condensing chamber/first frame and the film or the membrane, and an elastic sealing gasket between the cooling chamber/second frame and the film, in order to seal the various components of the membrane distiller to one another.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifa in view of Singh, Cheng, Gore, as applied to claims 17-21 and 23 above, and in further view of Heinzl (US 10,143,971).
With regard to claims 27 and 29: Modified Khalifa is silent to the polymer frames being made of ridged fluoropolymer. Modified Khalifa is also silent to the film being made of a fluoropolymer.
However, it is known in the art to make polymer evaporator frames from rigid fluoropolymer. For example, Heinzl teaches a membrane distillation system which may be comprised of a plurality of frames 100, 120, 130, 140 (abstract, Figures 10-14, Columns 14-17), wherein the frames may be formed from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) among other materials (Column 17 Lines 35-40). Such polyvinylidene fluoride for forming the frames is implicitly rigid, as rigidity is required for the frames to keep their structure.
The frames of the type 140 comprise a film 142 which function as a heat exchange wall (Column 17 Lines 4-20, Column 17 Line 60-Column 18 Line 3). Though it is not explicitly taught, the fact that the frames 140 may be made of polyvinylidene fluoride at least suggests that the film 142 thereof can be made of polyvinylidene fluoride as well.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Heinzl by configuring the frames to be made of a rigid fluoropolymer, i.e. polyvinylidene fluoride, and by configuring the film to be made of the same fluoropolymer, i.e. polyvinylidene fluoride, in order to obtain a predictably functional membrane distiller manufactured from art recognized suitable materials.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifa in view of Singh, Cheng, Gore, as applied to claims 17-21 and 23-26 above, and in further view of Kaganovsy et al. (US 4,372,818), hereafter referred to as Kaganosvsy.
With regard to claim 28: Modified Khalifa is silent to the gaskets being made of an elastic fluoropolymer.
However, gaskets made of fluoropolymer are known in the art. For example, Kaganovsy teaches a distillation apparatus comprising gaskets made of an elastic (yieldable) plastic material (claim 10), wherein said plastic material is polytetrafluoroethylene (claim 11). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Kaganovsy by configuring the gaskets to be made of an elastic fluoropolymer, i.e. PTFE, in order to obtain a predictably functional membrane distiller manufactured from art recognized suitable materials.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifa (US 10,596,521) in view of Singh et al. (US 9,751,052), hereafter referred to as Singh, and Cheng et al. (US 4,316,772), hereafter referred to as Cheng, Gore et al. (US 4,545,862), hereafter referred to as Gore, and Cath et al. (US 7,608,188), hereafter referred to as Cath.
With regard to claims 30: Khalifa teaches a membrane distillation assembly for providing purified water (abstract, Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6), the membrane distillation assembly comprising:
A membrane distiller for producing purified water (abstract, Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6), the membrane distiller comprising:
An evaporation chamber (feed zone) 104 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5, 6, 9, and 10).
A condensation chamber (distillate zone) 110 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5, 6, 9, and 10).
A cooling chamber (coolant zone) 118 located adjacent the condensation chamber 110, wherein a film (thermally conductive divider) 126 separates the cooling chamber 118 and the condensation chamber 110 (Figures 2A-C, Columns 9-11).
And a membrane 124 separating the evaporation chamber 104 and the condensation chamber from one another (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6, Column 7 Lines 14-67, Column 8), wherein the membrane 124 may have an average pore size in a preferred range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 30-35).
The membrane may be a multi-layer polymer membrane comprising: a first layer (hydrophobic layer), which may be constructed of PFDF; and a second layer (polymeric substrate), which may be constructed of polypropylene, among other thermoplastic polymers; wherein the second layer is laminated to first layer (i.e. the first layer (hydrophobic layer) is disposed on the second layer (polymeric substrate); and wherein the thickness of said membrane may be in a preferred range of 105-160 micrometers (0.105-0.160 mm) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 14-30 and 48-54).
As mentioned above, the membrane 124 may have an average pore size in a preferred range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers) (Column 7 Lines 14-67, especially lines 30-35). Bearing this in mind, though the pore size of specifically the first layer is not explicitly taught, it is implicit in Khalifa that specifically the first layer may have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers).
In the unlikely alternative, the teachings of Khalifa would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least suggest that specifically the first layer may have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers). Furthermore, membrane pore size (including pore size of individual membrane layers) is well understood to be a result effective variable in membrane distillation. "[When] 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 MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the event that it is not implicit in Khalifa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalifa by configuring the first layer (hydrophobic layer) of the membrane to have a pore size in the range of 0.2-0.3 micrometers (200-300 nanometers), in order to obtain a predictably functional membrane which is congruent in scope with the teachings and suggestions of Khalifa.
The membrane distiller of Khalifa may further comprise a rigid first frame (e.g. the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8 and/or the frame as illustrated in Figure 5) having a first surface and a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein at least a portion of the condensation chamber is constituted by the central aperture, and wherein the membrane is connected to a first surface of the first frame covering the central aperture (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52, Figure 5, Column 18 Lines 40-60), wherein the first frame may be a polymer frame, i.e. a frame formed from plastic (Figure 5, Column 18 Lines 40-60).
Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the first layer (hydrophobic layer) is nonwoven. Additionally, Khalifa is silent to the second layer (polymeric substrate) being spunbonded.
However, it must be noted that Khalifa also does not teach that the first layer is woven. Furthermore, Khalifa teaches that the membrane may have an open spongy morphology (Column 7 Lines 30-45, especially lines 34-40). A membrane which is woven would not be regarded as having a “spongy morphology”. Accordingly, Khalifa’s teachings would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first layer (hydrophobic layer) should be, or at least may be, nonwoven.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to form hydrophobic hydrophobic layers of composite membranes such that they are nonwoven. For example, Singh teaches a composite membrane for membrane distillation applications, the membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer (nanofiber layer) 205 which is electrospun (abstract, Figure 2, Column 6 Lines 30-45). It is understood that an electrospun membrane layer is nonwoven as is clearly illustrated in Figure 5 of Singh (Figure 5, Column 8 Lines 15-32).
It is also known in the art to form polymeric substrate membrane layers by spin bonding. For example, Singh teaches the membrane to comprise a polymeric substrate layer (backing layer) 210 which may be spunbonded (“spun bound”) (abstract, Figure 2, Column 6 Lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalifa in view of Singh by configuring the first layer (the hydrophobic layer) to be nonwoven, and configuring the second layer (the polymeric substrate) to be spunbonded in order to obtain a predictably functional composite membrane.
Modified Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the second layer is facing the condensation chamber or the first surface of the first frame.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that because the membrane is attached to the first surface of the first frame and, the first frame (the central aperture thereof) defines the condensation chamber, if the second layer of the membrane faces the condensation chamber, it will also necessarily face the first surface of the first frame.
It is notoriously well-known in the art that, when a composite membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer and a polymeric substrate layer is used in a membrane distillation device, the hydrophobic layer should face the evaporation chamber of said device, leaving the substrate layer to face the condensation chamber of said device. For example, Cheng et al. (US 4,316,772) teaches a composite membrane for use in membrane distillation (Columns 1 and 2), the membrane comprising a hydrophobic layer 36 adjacent a distilland 12 (i.e. a solution to be distilled) and a hydrophilic layer 38 adjacent a distillate 14 (Figure 3, Column 2 Lines 25-45, Column 6 Lines 8-18). Cheng teaches that “In applications such as desalination of salt water, water-logging is prevented by the hydrophilic layer adjacent to the salt water, and continuous evaporation/condensation occurs within the pores of the hydrophobic layer,” (Column 2 Lines 37-41). Cheng also teaches that “The hydrophilic layer adjacent to the fresh water increases the fresh water production rate when compared to similar systems with no hydrophilic layer adjacent to the distillate” (Column 2 Lines 31-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Cheng by arranging the membrane such that the first layer faces the evaporation chamber, and such that the second layer faces the condensation chamber and thus the first surface of the first frame, in order to obtain a system wherein the first hydrophobic layer is adjacent the distilland so as to prevent water-logging.
Modified Khalifa does not explicitly teach that the film is a polymer film.
However, the film 126 of Khalifa is a heat exchange wall (“thermally conductive divider”) which is desirably made from a thermally conductive material (Khalifa: Column 10 Lines 35-65). It is known in the art that polymer materials can be used to form heat exchange walls. For example, Gore teaches a membrane distillation module having a heat exchange wall (water vapor impermeable sheet) 12 which may be formed from a polymer (plastic) film (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4 Line 45-Column 5 Line 2). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, it is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Gore by replacing the film in Khalifa with a polymer film, in order to obtain a predictably functional system wherein the polymer film performs its role as a heat exchange wall with predictable success.
Modified Khalifa silent to the membrane assembly comprising i) a reservoir connected to the membrane distiller, the reservoir being configured for intermediate storing of purified water, ii) a water supply unit connected to the membrane distiller, and iii) a purified water dispenser tool connected to the reservoir.
However, it is notoriously well known in the art to provide membrane distillation assemblies with all of said features.
For example, Cath teaches a membrane distillation assembly comprising:
A membrane distiller (flow cell) 128 (Figure 1, abstract, Columns 6-8).
A reservoir 164 connected to the membrane distiller and being configured for intermediate storing of purified water (Figure 1, abstract, Columns 6-8).
A water supply unit connected to the membrane distiller, the water supply unit comprising at least one water supply conduit, a pressure regulator valve 610, a buffer tank (feed source) 110, and a water return conduit (Figure 1, abstract, Columns 6-8, Column 14 Lines 30-40).
And a purified water dispenser tool, i.e. the spout disposed on the side of the reservoir as illustrated in Figure 1.
The advantages of including said features in a membrane distillation assembly would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, the reservoir provides a means for storing purified water for later use; the water supply unit provides a means for storing feed water and supplying said feed water to the membrane distiller in a controlled fashion; and the purified water dispenser tool provides a means of retrieving purified water from the reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Khalifa in view of Cath by adding: i) a reservoir connected to the membrane distiller, the reservoir being configured for intermediate storing of purified water’ ii) a water supply unit connected to the membrane distiller, the water supply unit comprising at least one water supply conduit, a pressure regulator valve, a buffer tank, and a water return conduit; and iii) a purified water dispenser tool connected to the reservoir, in order to yield the respective benefits of said features in the system of Khalifa.
The membrane distiller of modified Khalifa may further comprise a rigid second frame (coolant channel plate) having a first surface and a second surface and a central aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the film 126 is connected to a first surface of the second frame covering the central aperture, and wherein second frame (coolant channel plate) may be a polymer such as PVC or HDPE (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52).
Examiner acknowledges that teachings specifically referencing Figure 5 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a first polymer frame, whereas teachings specifically referencing Figure 8 are relied upon to show that Khalifa teaches a second polymer frame. For the sake of argument, even if Khalifa does not fairly teach an embodiment wherein both the first and second frames are polymer frames, Khalifa would nevertheless suggest such an embodiment in at least the following manner.
Khalifa at least suggests an embodiment comprising both a first frame (the “gasket” 5 as illustrated in Figure 8) and a second frame (the coolant channel plate 8 as shown in Figure 8), wherein the second frame may be made from a polymer material (Figure 8, Column 6 Lines 44-49, Column 14 Lines 42-52). Although the first frame (gasket) 5 is not expressly taught to be made of plastic, the fact that the second frame may be made from a polymer material, e.g. PVC, HDPE (Column 14 Lines 42-52), would suggest that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the first frame “gasket” 5 as well.
Khalifa further teaches that a vessel 102 containing the evaporation chamber 104 and the condensation chamber 110 may be formed from various polymeric materials, high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate (Figures 2A-C, Columns 5 and 6, especially column 5 line 67-Column 6 Line 6). It is not abundantly clear whether the arrangement comprising the plurality of frames as illustrated in Figure 8 is regarded by Khalifa as a specific embodiment of the vessel or as an alternative to the vessel 102. Regardless, in either case, the fact that polymer materials are suitable for use in constructing the vessel 102 further suggests that they would be suitable for use in constructing the first frame (i.e. the gasket as shown in Figure 8), especially considering that polymer materials are also taught to be suitable for the construction of the additional frames shown in Figure 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights