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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “membrane part” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding preamble of Claim 1, claiming “an arrangement”, which falls into more than one statutory category, however there are no claim reciting steps or method of arrangement. Claim 1 and its dependent claims will be interpreted to be a system because it includes the plate and membrane.
Regarding limitations recited in Claim 1, “gaseous liquid can pass but not fluid in liquid form ” because: the phrase “gaseous liquid” is inconsistent because it comprises gas and liquid, fluid encompasses but gas and liquid, therefore it is unclear whether the membrane is a gas permeable and liquid-impermeable, selective permeable to a particular substance depending upon its phase or has some other permeability characteristic?
Claim 1, 5, 11, 14 recites “relatively thin wall”, which is a relative term. However, claims 15-16 defined the range in which the wall can be less than 1 mm. Hence the phrase “relatively thin wall” is not deemed indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “relatively warmer liquid”, which is a relative term. However, the specification defined the range of temperature for the “relatively warmer liquid” to be at least more than about 5 degrees warmer than the relatively colder liquid. Hence the phrase “relatively warmer liquid” is not indefinite.
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 1-29 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, line 2 recites “an arrangement… consisting of at least one plate comprising a structure…”. It is unclear what Applicant is claiming with alternative transition terms of “consisting of” and further using “comprising”, therefore indefinite because “consisting of…” and “comprising” contradict each other.
The transitional term “consisting” is “closed-ended”, the claim covers only embodiments that have exactly the recited elements.
The transitional term "comprising" (and other comparable terms, e.g., "containing," and "including") is "open-ended" in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim."); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("comprising" leaves the "claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts"); see also MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim 1, line 6 recites the term “constituting”, it is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant meant to have “consisting of” or “comprising of” with the term “constituting”.
Claim 1, line 6-7 also recites “constituting at least some of the more central portions of said plate structure, and wherein said surface portions of the membrane are directly joined to the surface portions of the plate structure to form a compartment for condensing gas into liquid”. As stated above, it is unclear what “constituting” means, if Applicant meant “consisting of” or “comprising…”, the limitation “at least some of the more central portions” is also indefinite due to “consisting of” ONLY encompasses the limitation of the claim and nothing else.
Claim 3 and 27, line 3 recites “a sealed compartment”, and Claim 2, line 4 recites “the compartment”, it is unclear whether the sealed compartment of Claim 3 and the compartment of Claim 2 is the same compartment within the apparatus. For purpose of examination, “sealed compartment” will construe to be a compartment capable of holding in water.
Claims 2, 4-24 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected Claim 1.
Claim 25, line 2 recites “a membrane”, Claim 26, line 2 recites “surface portion of a membrane” and Claim 29 recites “a membrane part”, it is unclear if the “membrane” mentioned in the above claims are the same membrane or referring to different type of membrane. Examiner requests Applicant to clarify if the membrane are different type or the same membrane.
Claim 26-29 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected Claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by. Lienhard et al. (US 2016/0107121 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Lienhard teaches a plate having a structure and configured to be joined to a membrane (hydrophobic membrane 14) through which gaseous liquid can pass through but not fluid in liquid form (¶0001, “hydrophobic membrane that allows pure water vapor through while retaining the dissolved salts”), wherein the structure of a first side of the plate (Fig. 4, heat transfer plate 12) is configured so that a membrane that is joined to the first side is substantially parallel with (Fig.4 shows the surface of hydrophobic membrane 14 connected to the heat transfer plate 12) and is facing a relatively thin wall constituting at least some of the more central portions of the plate and the distance between the relatively thin wall and the membrane defines the air gap of a compartment (air gap 34) for condensing gas into liquid (Fig. 2, ¶0045, “the vapor 36 crosses an air gap 34 and is condensed on a condensing surface 13”).
Regarding Claim 26, Lienhard teaches the plate according to claim 25, wherein the first side of the plate is provided with a cavity (air gap 34), and wherein said cavity is configured so that, when surface portions of a membrane are joined to surface portions surrounding the cavity in the first side of the plate, a compartment for condensing gas into liquid is formed (Fig. 1, ¶0045, “the vapor 36 crosses an air gap 34 and is condensed on a condensing surface 13”, wherein the condensing surface 13 is positioned on the side of heat transfer plate 12).
Regarding Claim 27, Lienhard teaches the plate according to claim 26, wherein said cavity is configured so that, when surface portions of the membrane are joined to the first side in a closed joining line surrounding said cavity, a sealed compartment for condensing gas into liquid is formed (Fig. 1, ¶0045, “the vapor 36 crosses an air gap 34 and is condensed on a condensing surface 13”, wherein the condensing surface 13 is positioned on the side of heat transfer plate 12, the structure of the plate above is also capable of holding in water without any leakage which reads on the claimed “sealed compartment”).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lienhard et al. (US 2016/0107121 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Lienhard teaches the plate according to claim 25, wherein the plate comprises at least one outlet (see Annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lienhard does not teach that the outlet is an integral part of the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlet and structure of Lienhard by integrating said outlet to be an integral part of the structure because it would obviously achieve the predictable result of maximizing hydraulic sealing. Mechanically durability and simplifying overall system maintenance with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lienhard et al. (US 2016/0107121 A1) in view of Robins (US Patent No. 5,108,604).
Regarding Claim 29, Lienhard teaches the plate according to Claim 25, wherein the plate structure comprises a membrane part (Fig. 8, hydrophobic membrane 14)
Lienhard does not teach a membrane part which is at least one of injection moulded and 3D printed to be an integral part of the structure.
Robins teaches a membrane part which is at least one of injection molded and 3D printed to be an integral part of the structure (see Abstract, “Cartridge for use in ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis separation devices are formed by injection molding”, because there are no clear explanation of what “a membrane part” can be, a cartridge to hold the membrane can be construed as “a membrane part”).
Lienhard and Robins are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semi-permeable membrane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified how Lienhard incorporated the membrane part to the structure to incorporate the teachings of Robins to further include injection molding of membrane parts to provide substantial efficiencies in the overall manufacturing of semi-permeable membrane separation (see Robins Abstract).
Prior Art
Currently, no prior art rejections are made over Claims 1-29. The Examiner will assess allowability of the claims once the 112(b) rejections over Claims 1 and 25-29 are addressed.
Lienhard et al. (US 2016/0107121 A1) and Assink et al. (CN 101600492 A) are the closest prior art to Claims 1-29.
Regarding Claim 1, Lienhard teaches an arrangement for at least one of separating and purifying a liquid consisting (¶0001, “membrane distillation”) of at least one plate comprising a structure and
where the arrangement further includes a membrane through which gaseous liquid can pass but not fluid in liquid form (¶0001, “hydrophobic membrane that allows pure water vapor through while retaining the dissolved salts”)
wherein surface portions of the membrane (hydrophobic membrane 14) are joined to surface portions of a first side of the structure of the at least one plate so that the joined membrane is substantially parallel (Fig.4 shows the surface of hydrophobic membrane 14 connected to the heat transfer plate 12) with and is facing a relatively thin wall constituting at least some of the more central portions of said plate structure (Fig. 4, heat transfer plate 12)
and wherein said surface portions of the membrane are directly joined to the surface portions of the plate structure to form a compartment (air gap 34) for condensing gas into liquid (Fig. 2, ¶0045, “the vapor 36 crosses an air gap 34 and is condensed on a condensing surface 13”).Lienhard et al. does not teach the arrangement of Claim 11 consisting of only the above disclosure.
In related fields of endeavor, Assink et al. teaches the motivation of solving the problem of improving the direct contact membrane distillation performance and reduces the cost and energy consumption of the membrane distillation system (see Assink et al. Disclosure).
However, none of these references alone or together would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to recite the invention of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH HUYNH NGOC BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-5588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights