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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a membrane” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same membrane previously recited in the preamble or a different membrane. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “[[a]] the membrane.”
Claim 1 recites “the more central portions” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been construed as reciting “
Claim 1 recites a “relatively thin wall” in line 9 but provides no basis for comparison. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims, particularly what thickness would be required for a wall to be considered “relatively thin.” Therefore any central wall portion which otherwise meets the claim will be considered sufficiently thin to meet this limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the first side” and “the structure” to define parts of another plate. Identical terms should not be used to describe different components associated with different plates. The claim should differentiate between the first side and structure of the first plate and the first side and structure of a different plate in a clear manner.
Claim 3 recites “a membrane” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same membrane previously recited in the preamble or a different membrane. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “[[a]] another membrane.”
Claim 3 recites a “relatively warmer liquid” in line 6 but provides no basis for comparison. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims, particularly what temperature would be required for a liquid to be considered “relatively warmer.”
Claim 3 recites “the substantially parallel and opposing membranes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been construed as reciting “
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the relatively thin wall,” which is unclear for the same reasons detailed above with respect to the same limitation in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites that the forming step comprises “joining by at least one of injection molding and 3D-printing” the plate. This is unclear because the forming by injection molding and/or 3D printing are molding and additive manufacturing forming techniques, respectively, rather than joining techniques. Therefore it is unclear what is being joined in such a step. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “wherein said forming of the at least one plate [[is]] comprises[[ing]]: /or 3D-printing the structure…”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the two different types of compartments.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim also recites “the respective at least one inlet at least one outlet of each compartment,” which also lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 10-2105349) in view of Saask (WO 2009/005454).
Hong teaches a method of making a steam exchange device, the method utilizing a second plate (30) having outer surface portions and a central portion with a wall that is thinner than the outer surface portions as indicated in Fig. 2 of Hong as shown:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The method of Hong comprises providing the second plate (30), joining peripheral side portions of a second separation membrane (40) to the outer surface portions of the second plate such that the second separation membrane is substantially parallel with and facing the central portion of the second plate, directly joining the second separation membrane to the outer surface portions of the second plate to form a second flow path (31) in which water vapor condenses and subsequently exits the second flow path via an opening, as shown in Fig. 5b (See Figures; [0022]-[0036]). The second plate, second separation membrane, and second flow path of Hong read on the instantly claimed at least one plate, membrane, and compartment for condensing gas into liquid, respectively.
Regarding the instantly claimed step of “forming at least one plate,” Hong does not expressly disclose such a step, however the step is inherent in the reference. Since the plate of Hong is provided with the instantly claimed structure, it must somehow be formed to adopt such a shape. Therefore the formation of the plate is inherent in the reference.
In the method of Hong, the second plate is shown with a wide opening (See Figs. 1-2). Hong does not expressly disclose providing a substantially sealed compartment for condensing gas into liquid that comprises an opening or outlet for conveying liquid away from the compartment as claimed.
Saask teaches a membrane distillation unit (1) comprising a second wall (4) and a membrane (3), wherein water that passes through the membrane is condensed on the second wall and is transported away (7) through a pipe (13) (See Figures; p. 3, lines 4-20; p. 4, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substantially seal the second plate of Hong and provide an opening therein for removing liquid water from the second flow path since Saask teaches that this structure was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose, as detailed above.
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 18, the method of Hong utilizes metal plates (See [0018]-[0019]) and does not expressly disclose plates which are made by injection molding or 3D printing as claimed.
Saask teaches that the second wall may be made of metal or plastic (See p. 4, lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second plate of Hong with plastic instead of metal. Saask teaches that metal and plastic were both recognized in the prior art as being suitable for forming a plate of a membrane distillation unit (See p. 4, lines 24-25). Therefore the substitution of one material for another material which was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for the same purpose would have been obvious.
Regarding the formation of the plates by injection molding and/or 3D printing, Examiner is taking official notice that injection molding and 3D printing are well-known and ubiquitous techniques for molding plastic components in a desired shape such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the formation of plastic plates or frames for a membrane distiller, including any openings for accommodating discharge pipes or conduits, could be successfully formed by such techniques.
Regarding claim 13, Hong and Saask do not expressly disclose collecting condensed water in a container after condensation, however such a step is implicit in the reference. In particular, Hong states that membrane distillation may be used to desalinate sea water for public usage in areas with scarce freshwater supplies (See [0002]-[0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that upon being purified and condensed, water would be collected in some sort of container for further storage, transport, distribution and/or use, any such container meeting the claim.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hong and Saask do not expressly disclose the thickness of the central portion. However such a dimension is a routine matter of design choice which would be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art based upon dimensional requirements, materials used, and heat transfer properties. The routine selection of such a dimension does not patentably distinguish the claimed method from the method taught by the combination of Hong and Saask.
Claims 3-6, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 10-2105349) in view of Saask (WO 2009/005454) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naslund (US 2023/0009754).
Hong and Saask combine to teach a method of forming a steam exchange device, as detailed above.
Hong and Saask do not expressly disclose joining two frames together such that a warm-liquid channel which passes between two separate cooling and condensing compartments as claimed.
Naslund teaches a membrane distiller (1) comprising a condensation channel (50) formed between a surface (22) of a cooling section (20) and a membrane (30), wherein the condensation channel includes an opening for purified water discharge tubing (56) to remove purified water from the condensation channel (See Figures; [0036]-[0037]; [0065]-[0066]). Naslund also teaches that unit cells of the membrane distiller may be arranged in alternating fashion such that a single evaporation channel (40) is provided between a pair of cooling sections (20) (See Fig. 9 [0065]-[0067]). The evaporation channel is a warm-liquid channel as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the alternating arrangement of Naslund in the steam exchange device taught by the combination of Hong and Saask. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Naslund that to do so would predictably provide efficient use of hot and cold regions (See [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Naslund teaches that the evaporation chamber includes a water inlet (44) and a water outlet (48) (See Fig. 2; [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Naslund teaches that the cooling section (20) includes a cooling channel (26) through which a cooling fluid flows to cool the surface (22) on which condensation occurs (See Fig. 5; [0051]-[0055]). Therefore when applying the alternating arrangements shown in Figs. 8 and 9 of Naslund to the method taught by the combination of Hong and Saask, the fluid within the cooling channel (26) cools inner surfaces of two respective condensation channels as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the alternating arrangement of Naslund in the steam exchange device taught by the combination of Hong and Saask to predictably provide efficient use of hot and cold regions (See [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Naslund teaches that the cooling channel includes a cooling fluid inlet (21) and a cooling fluid outlet (27) (See Fig. 5; [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Naslund teaches that the polymer plates or frames may be mechanically fastened (See [0069]; [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Naslund teaches that polymer plates or frames may be joined together without the need for additional sealings (See [0076]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 10-2105349) in view of Saask (WO 2009/005454) and Naslund (US 2023/0009754) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Heinzl (US 2012/0038069).
Hong, Saask, and Naslund combine to teach a method of forming a steam exchange device, as detailed above. In the proposed combination, plates are directly joined to form alternating warm and cool channels.
Hong, Saask, and Naslund do not expressly disclose welding the plates together.
Heinzl teaches a method of forming functional units such as a membrane distillation stages made from frame elements with membranes, the method comprising welding the frame elements together (See [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to directly weld the plates together in the method taught by the combination of Hong, Saask, and Naslund since Heinzl teaches that welding was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for joining frame elements in membrane distillation stages (See [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Heinzl discloses laser welding as a suitable welding technique (See [0011]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 10-2105349) in view of Saask (WO 2009/005454) and Naslund (US 2023/0009754) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Holmstrom (US 2025/0025835).
Hong, Saask, and Naslund combine to teach a method of forming a steam exchange device, as detailed above. In the proposed combination, plates are directly joined to form alternating warm and cool channels.
Hong, Saask, and Naslund do not expressly disclose ultrasonic welding (claim 10) or adhesive bonding (claim 11) for joining the plates.
Holmstrom teaches bonding polymeric frames and membranes together with ultrasonic welding or adhesive bonding to form a membrane distillation unit (See [0071]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the ultrasonic welding or adhesive bonding techniques of Holmstrom in the method taught by the combination of Hong, Saask, and Naslund since Holmstrom teaches that such bonding techniques were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for joining components of a membrane distillation unit (See [0071]-[0072]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 10-2105349) in view of Saask (WO 2009/005454) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Heinzl (US 2012/0038069).
Hong and Saask combine to teach a method of forming a steam exchange device wherein water is condensed in the second flow path and collected in a container, as detailed above.
Hong, Saask, and Naslund do not expressly disclose welding the container to an outlet of the second flow path.
Heinzl teaches a method of forming functional units such as a membrane distillation stages comprising frame elements with membranes, the method comprising welding the frame elements together (See [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to weld the plate and container together in the method taught by the combination of Hong and Saask since Heinzl teaches that welding was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for joining adjacent elements in membrane distillation stages (See [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Heinzl discloses laser welding as a suitable welding technique (See [0011]), and the welding step of Heinzl occurs directly without gaskets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights