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 is objected to because it is one long, run-on sentence. 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: please also insert the WIPO publication number and date and PCT application number and filing date in the Cross-Reference to Related Applications section.
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, 5 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 the limitation “the hollow fiber membrane” on line 16. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the hollow fiber membranes” earlier in the claim, or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a module” on line 10. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a module” as on line 1, or if it is a different limitation.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al., (“Kawano”, US 4,666,543), in view of Ishizaki et al., JP2007125452A, (“Ishizaki”, a translation and patent document of this publication has been filed by Applicant on June 15, 2024 and is claim mapped to in the rejection below).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawano discloses a hollow fiber membrane module, (See Abstract), comprising: a hollow fiber membrane bundle that has a plurality of hollow fiber membranes aligned in one direction, (Hollow Fibers 2 arranged vertically, See Figure 6a, See column 4, lines 2-10); a housing that accommodates the hollow fiber membrane bundle, (Housing 1 receives Hollow Fibers 2 as shown in Figure 1, See column 3, lines 12-33); and a potting portion provided around both ends or one end of the hollow fiber membrane bundle, (Walls 3 of potting material at either end of Hollow Fibers 2, See Figures 1 & 6a, See column 3, lines 12-33, column 3, lines 53-68, column 4, lines 1-10), in which space between an outer surface of the hollow fiber membranes and an inner surface of the housing is filled with a potting agent, (Walls 3 of potting material at either end of Hollow Fibers 2, See Figures 1 & 6a, See column 3, lines 12-33, column 3, lines 53-68, column 4, lines 1-10), wherein each of the hollow fiber membranes has a body portion, (Middle portions (placed vertically) of each Hollow Fiber 2, See Figure 6a), and an enlarged- diameter portion provided at both ends or one end of the body portion and having an inner diameter enlarged as compared to the body portion, (Edges defining openings at either end of Hollow Fibers 2 which are wider than middle portions of each Hollow Fiber 2, See Figure 6a), and a tapered portion provided between the body portion and the enlarged-diameter portion and having an inner diameter enlarged gradually in a direction from the body portion toward the enlarged-diameter portion, (Portion of Hollow Fibers 2 in Potting Walls 3 is tapered gradually to opening at either end of Hollow Fibers 2, See Figure 6a), neither the body portion nor the enlarged-diameter portion has a tapered shape, (neither openings or middle portions of Hollow Fibers 2 have tapered shape, See Figure 6a), the enlarged-diameter portion is buried in the potting portion, (Edges of Hollow Fibers 2 share entire perimeter with Potting Wall 3, See Figure 6a), and in a longitudinal direction of the hollow fiber membrane, the body portion is longer than the enlarged-diameter portion, (Middle Portions of Hollow Fibers 2 is longer than tapered portion or openings of Hollow Fibers 2 within Potting Wall 3, See Figure 6a).
Kawano does not disclose that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion.
Ishizaki discloses that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion, (Portion of 2 that is wider and non-tapered is longer than portion of 2 that is tapering, See Figure 2, Ishizaki).
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 hollow fiber membrane module of Kawano by incorporating that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion as in Ishizaki in order to provide an opening ratio where “adhesion failure between the hollow fibers at the time of potting is reduced” and a “substance accumulated between the yarns…can be easily discharged”, (See paragraph [0015], Ishizaki).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kawano discloses the hollow fiber membrane module according to claim 1, but does not disclose in the specified combination, comprising a fluororesin as a main component.
Another feature of Ishizaki discloses comprising a fluororesin as a main component, (See paragraph [0031], Ishizaki; PTFE or PVDF for the membranes).
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 hollow fiber membrane module of Kawano by incorporating that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion as in another feature of Ishizaki because “the material of the hollow fiber membrane…may be any material used for…an ultrafiltration membrane”, (See paragraph [0031], Ishizaki), in which hollow fiber membranes used in kidney dialysis as in Kawano, (See column 1, lines 14-18, Kawano), are ultrafiltration membranes, (“based on their mean pore size, membranes for kidney dialysis application can be categorized as…ultrafiltration membranes”, “2.7. Characterization of the pore size and pore size distribution of hollow fiber membranes by solute transport”, page 146, Yang et al., “Tailoring pore size and pore size distribution of kidney dialysis hollow fiber membranes via dual-bath coagulation approach”, Journal of Membrane Science, 290, 153-163, 2007).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawano discloses a hollow fiber membrane for a module, (See Abstract), comprising: a body portion, (Middle portions (placed vertically) of each Hollow Fiber 2, See Figure 6a); and an enlarged-diameter portion provided at both ends or one end of the body portion and having an inner diameter enlarged as compared to the body portion, (Edges defining openings at either end of Hollow Fibers 2 which are wider than middle portions of each Hollow Fiber 2, See Figure 6a); and a tapered portion provided between the body portion and the enlarged-diameter portion and having an inner diameter enlarged gradually in a direction from the body portion toward the enlarged-diameter portion, (Portion of Hollow Fibers 2 in Potting Walls 3 is tapered gradually to opening at either end of Hollow Fibers 2, See Figure 6a), wherein neither the body portion nor the enlarged-diameter portion has a tapered shape, (neither openings or middle portions of Hollow Fibers 2 have tapered shape, See Figure 6a), and in a longitudinal direction of the hollow fiber membrane for a module, the body portion is longer than the enlarged-diameter portion, (Middle Portions of Hollow Fibers 2 is longer than tapered portion or openings of Hollow Fibers 2 within Potting Wall 3, See Figure 6a).
Kawano does not disclose that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion.
Ishizaki discloses that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion, (Portion of 2 that is wider and non-tapered is longer than portion of 2 that is tapering, See Figure 2, Ishizaki).
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 hollow fiber membrane module of Kawano by incorporating that the enlarged-diameter portion is longer than the tapered portion as in Ishizaki in order to provide an opening ratio where “adhesion failure between the hollow fibers at the time of potting is reduced” and a “substance accumulated between the yarns…can be easily discharged”, (See paragraph [0015], Ishizaki).
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al., (“Kawano”, US 4,666,543), in view of Ishizaki et al., JP2007125452A, (“Ishizaki”, a translation and patent document of this publication has been filed by Applicant on June 15, 2024 and is claim mapped to in the rejection below), in further view of Xiaolong, CN102309929A, (“Machine Translation of CN102309929A”, Xiaolong, Lv, published 2012, 27 total pages).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kawano discloses the hollow fiber membrane module according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an average inner-diameter ratio of the enlarged-diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.2 to 2.5.
Xiaolong discloses wherein an average inner-diameter ratio of the enlarged-diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.2 to 2.5, (See paragraph [0017]; the disclosed ratio of the smaller diameter to the larger diameter anticipates the claimed range from 1.2 to 2).
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 hollow fiber membrane module of modified Kawano by incorporating wherein an average inner-diameter ratio of the enlarged-diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.2 to 2.5 as in Xiaolong because “the different inner diameters cause the flow rate of the filtered liquid in the hollow fiber membrane tube to change periodically…reducing membrane fouling”, (See paragraph [0005], Xiaolong).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kawano discloses the hollow fiber membrane module according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an average inner-cavity cross-sectional-area ratio of the enlarged- diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.4 to 6.0.
Xiaolong discloses wherein an average inner-cavity cross-sectional-area ratio of the enlarged- diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.4 to 6.0, (See paragraph [0017]; the disclosed ratio of the smaller diameter to the larger diameter anticipates the claimed range from 1.2 to 2, in which converting to an area ratio would yield (1.2)2 to (2)2 or 1.44 to 4, anticipating the claimed range through these values).
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 hollow fiber membrane module of modified Kawano by incorporating wherein an average inner-cavity cross-sectional-area ratio of the enlarged- diameter portion to the body portion is from 1.4 to 6.0as in Xiaolong because “the different inner diameters cause the flow rate of the filtered liquid in the hollow fiber membrane tube to change periodically…reducing membrane fouling”, (See paragraph [0005], Xiaolong).
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