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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/714,680 application filed on May 30, 2024. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/30/2024 and 04/24/2026. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga et al. (US20220001331; Suga) in view of Leonard (US4,220,535) and Herczeg et al. (US20210275971; Herczeg) (each in IDS of 05/30/2024).
Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. The analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 8, Suga discloses a hollow fiber membrane distillation module (figs. 1A-2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 21; para [0010], [0078]-[0079]) comprising a hollow fiber membrane bundle 11 (figs. 1A-B; [0078]-[0079]; porous membranes 11 bundled together) and a housing 20 (fig. 1A) for containing the membrane bundle (fig. 1A; [0079]), wherein:
the membrane bundle comprises a plurality of hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes (11 - "hydrophobic porous membranes," figs. 1A-B) having a first end (fig. 1A; see top of membranes 11 in top membrane fixing portion 12) and a second end (fig. 1A; see bottom of
membranes 11 in bottom membrane fixing portion 12), the first end and the second end being secured in a first membrane boot (top 12 - "membrane fixing portion", fig. 1A; [0079]) and a second membrane boot (top 12 - "membrane fixing portion", fig. 1A; [0079]),
respectively (figs. 1A-B);
the membrane bundle is supported by a plurality of supporting rods 17 ("rod-shaped body," fig. 9; para [0044], [0146]);
each of the first membrane boot and the second membrane boot has an attached flange to which respective ends of the supporting rods are secured (fig. 9; outer portions of membrane fixing portions 12 act as a flange to support connection to the rods 17), thereby spacing the first membrane boot from the second membrane boot such that the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes are disposed longitudinally therebetween (figs. 1 and 9);
wherein the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes are packed at a density ([0107]) selected to allow passage of vapor away from a permeate side of the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes towards the housing (figs. 1 A-2; [0020]; note how vapor B flows away from fiber 11 to housing 20)(note that the reason or purpose for the packing density does not lend patentable weight to the claim, if it does not change the structure since one can include the same structure for a different purpose, or to achieve another advantage; Alternatively, optimizing a module in order to make it efficient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and at the time when the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pack the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes at a density that optimizes the passage of vapor away from a permeate side of the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes towards the housing to ensure the module operates as efficiently as possible to reduce costs and increase output );
the membrane bundle is not enclosed in a porous or perforated sleeve (fig. 8; [0043]; fig. 8 is one example of a cartridge 10 that uses a net 15; [0017], [0038]; net 15 "may be" used; other embodiments without the net 15 are contemplated);
a center core spans the length of the membrane bundle (Fig. 1A); and
the housing comprises a tubular body (30 - "housing main body", fig. 1A) and a bottom cap (40 - "housing lid portion", fig. 1A; [0079]; bottom housing lid portion 40 is not labeled but is described and shown in fig. 1A), is connected to a vapor header (35 - "cooling body", fig. 16; [0063]-[0064]; see how vapor enters cooling body 35 through steam passage 38), and is configured to optimize throughput of permeate by accommodating expansion of liquid water to the vapor phase during vacuum membrane distillation (intended use: figs. 16, 21; [0064]; vacuum distillation is used on the gas phase (vapor) and is thus the throughput of permeate can be optimized) and to facilitate exit of water vapor from the module via an outlet of the vapor header (37 - "exhaust port," figs. 16, 21 ), said outlet connected to a vacuum pump ([0064] - "vacuum pump"; [0245], [0316]).
Therefore, Suga discloses the claimed invention, except wherein the first and second ends of the hollow fiber membranes are secured to the first and second membrane boots by chemical bonding of the fiber membrane to a potting compound.
Leonard discloses a plurality of selectively permeable hollow fibers suitable for the selective permeation of at least one fluid in a fluid mixture containing at least one other fluid, said fibers being generally parallelly oriented within an elongated shell (Abstract). Leonard also teaches a hollow fiber membrane distillation module (figs. 1-2; col 9, lines 5-62) comprising a membrane bundle (18 - "bundle," fig. 1) and comprising a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (figs. 1-2; see hollow fibers within bundle 18; col 9, lines 11-43) having a first end (fig. 1; see right end of bundle 18 at tube sheet 22) and a second end (fig. 1; see right end of bundle 18 at tube sheet 22), the first end and the second end being secured in a first membrane boot (22 - "tube sheet", fig. 1) and a second membrane boot (20 - "tube sheet," fig. 1), respectively, by chemical bonding of the fiber membrane to a potting compound (col 8, lns 3-28; col 9, lns 29 - 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to use chemical bonding with a potting compound like that of Leonard, on the hollow fiber membranes of Suga to ensure a stable and steady connection during a distillation process of the module.
Further, Herczeg teaches a hollow fiber membrane bundle (fig. 5; [0022]) comprising a plurality of hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes (504 - "hollow fiber filter membranes", fig. 5; [0057]-[0058]); a first membrane boot (510 - "mounting block", fig. 5) and a second membrane boot (fig. 5; potting 506) wherein a center core (507 - "rod", fig. 5) spans the length of the membrane bundle (fig. 5; [0022]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the central core of Herczeg on the membrane bundle of Suga to provide additional support to the bundle for supporting the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The hollow fiber membrane distillation module of claim 1, wherein the potting compound is an epoxy compound (Leonard, col 9, lines 41-43); Claim 3: The potting compound is chemically bonded to the hydrophobic hollow fiber membranes, the center core, and the membrane boots (Leonard, fig. 1; col 9, lns 11-43; potting compound bonds the fibers of bundle 18 to tube sheets 20, 22; Herczeg, fig. 5; [0022]; see rod 507 mounted in mounting block 510 and potting 506); Claim 4: The hollow fiber membrane distillation module, wherein the fiber packing density is 60% or less (Suga, [0107], [0346]); [0346]); Claim 6: The fiber packing density is in the range of 20% to 30% ([0346] – “the filling rate of the hollow fiber membrane bundle was 24%); and Claim 8: A process for separating dissolved solids from water which comprises a step of vacuum membrane distillation in a module according to claim 1 (claim 1 analysis; Suga, Abstract, [0010], [0064], [0078]-[0079], [0092], [0245], [0318] - "inorganic salts, organic substances, fine particles, oil, metals etc."; dissolved solids that are separated; figs. 1A-2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 21).
Regarding claim 5, Suga, Leonard and Herczeg combined disclose or suggest the hollow fiber membrane distillation module of claim 1, except wherein the fiber packing density is in the range of 30% to 40%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention been to routinely experiment with different fiber packing densities and to choose a suitable packing density to ensure that the module will efficiently perform the distillation process.
Regarding claim 7, Suga, Leonard and Herczeg combined disclose or suggest the hollow fiber membrane distillation module of claim 1, except which is configured to operate a vapor velocity through the housing and vapor outlet of between 50 and 150 fps.
However, Suga teaches that the hollow fiber membrane distillation module creates a vapor velocity through the housing and vapor outlet (figs. 16 and 21; [0215]; vapor is flowed through housing 30 to vapor passage portion 38 with some value for velocity).
Further, design decisions regarding the vapor velocity for the hollow fiber distribution module fall within the ordinary skill in the art of one designing a hollow fiber membrane distillation module.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment with alternate vapor flow velocities and to choose an appropriate and optimal range of vapor velocities, including those recited in the claim, to ensure that the module will efficiently perform the distillation process.
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights