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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests using some of the section headings as indicated below, as they may apply to the relevant headings in the current Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 1, 14 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 “a feed liquid” on line 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a feed liquid” already recited on line 1 or not. Examiner interprets to be the same.
The term “valuable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “valuable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what distinguishes “valuable” from “not valuable” based on the claim or to a skilled artisan.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a feed liquid” on line 4. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a feed liquid” already recited on line 1 or not. Examiner interprets to be the same.
The term “valuable” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “valuable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what distinguishes “valuable” from “not valuable” based on the claim or to a skilled artisan.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 12-16, 19-22, 25 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al., (“Hotta”, US 2021/0339194), in view of Fujita et al., (“Fujita”, CA 3141605 A, published 2020), as also evidenced by “Hansen solubility parameters”, (<https://www.stenutz.eu/chem/solv24.php?sort=3>, accessed from Web on July 17, 2026, 7 total pages), and “Ethyl acetate”, (“Ethyl acetate”, Wikipedia, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_acetate>, accessed from Web on July 21, 2026, 10 total pages).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12 & 13, Hotta discloses a feed liquid concentration method for concentrating a feed liquid, (See Abstract), wherein the method comprises a concentration step of bringing a feed liquid and a draw solution into contact via a forward osmosis membrane, (Unit A, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0050]), and the draw solution comprises a draw solute that is hydrophobic, (See Tables 3 & 4 and See paragraphs [0243] & [0255]; ethyl actate (EtAOc) is inherently hydrophobic since it is miscible in ethanol which is hydrophobic according to “Ethyl acetate”).
Hotta does not explicitly disclose the feed liquid comprises a valuable and 50% by mass or greater of an organic solvent.
Fujita discloses the feed liquid comprises a valuable and 50% by mass or greater of an organic solvent, (See paragraph [0048]).
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 feed liquid concentration method of Hotta by incorporating the feed liquid comprises a valuable and 50% by mass or greater of an organic solvent as in Fujita in order to “obtain a high concentration ratio while maintaining a high degree of raw material liquid components” and “it is possible to obtain a high-quality concentrate product with high efficiency”, (See paragraph [0053], Fujita), which can also be applied to pharmaceuticals (drugs) and amino acids, (See paragraph [0032], Fujita), as also contemplated in Hotta, (See paragraph [0025], Hotta).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein a dipolar interaction term of a Hansen SP value of the draw solute is 0.01 MPa1/2 or more and 6.40 MPa1/2 or less, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a value of 5.3095, anticipating at that value, according to evidentiary reference “Hansen solubility parameters”, after you multiply 2.59 by 2.05 to convert to MPa1/2).
Claim 3: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein a dispersion term of a Hansen SP value of the draw solute is 10.00 MPa1/2 or more and less than 17.00 MPa1/2, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a value of 15.826, anticipating at that value, according to evidentiary reference “Hansen solubility parameters”, after you multiply 7.72 by 2.05 to convert to MPa1/2).
Claim 6: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein a boiling point of the draw solute is lower than 300oC, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a boiling point of 77.1oC, anticipating at these value, according to evidentiary reference “Ethyl acetate”).
Claim 7: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein the forward osmosis membrane is a hollow-fiber membrane, (See paragraph [0185], [0186], Hotta).
Claim 8: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein the forward osmosis membrane comprises a substrate later and an active layer, and the substrate layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polysulfone, polyethersulfone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene, polypropylene, cellulose-based polymer, polyketone, polyamide, polyimide, polyether ether ketone, and polybenzimidazole, (See paragraph [0140], [0186], [0188], Hotta).
Claim 9: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 8, wherein the active layer is constituted of polyamide, (See paragraph [0142], [0194], Hotta).
Claim 12: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein the feed liquid is supplied continuously and a concentrated feed liquid is delivered continuously in the concentration step, (See paragraph [0052], Fujita).
Claim 13: The feed liquid concentration method according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of tetrahydrofuran, 2-methyl tetrahydrofuran, 1,4-dioxane, methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, acetonitrile, N,N-dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide, N-methylpyrrolidone, dimethylsulfoxide, sulfolane, chloroform, acetone, methyl butyl ketone, and pyridine, (See paragraph [0264], [0100], Hotta).
Regarding Claims 14-16, 19-22, 25 & 26, Hotta discloses a feed liquid concentration system for concentrating a feed liquid, (See Abstract), wherein the feed liquid concentration system comprises a forward osmosis membrane module configured to receive a feed liquid and a draw solution and to bring the feed liquid and the draw solution into contact via a forward osmosis membrane, (Unit A, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0050]), the feed liquid comprises a valuable and 50% by mass or greater of an organic solvent, and the draw solution comprises a draw solute that is hydrophobic, (See Tables 3 & 4 and See paragraphs [0243] & [0255], Hotta).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 15: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein a dipolar interaction term of a Hansen SP value of the draw solute is 0.01 MPa1/2 or more and 6.40 MPa1/2 or less, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a value of 5.3095, anticipating at that value, according to evidentiary reference “Hansen solubility parameters”, after you multiply 2.59 by 2.05 to convert to MPa1/2).
Claim 16: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein a dispersion term of a Hansen SP value of the draw solute is 10.00 MPa1/2 or more and less than 17.00 MPa1/2, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a value of 15.826, anticipating at that value, according to evidentiary reference “Hansen solubility parameters”, after you multiply 7.72 by 2.05 to convert to MPa1/2).
Claim 19: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein a boiling point of the draw solute is lower than 300oC, (See paragraphs [0243], [0255], Hotta; EtOAc or ethyl actate inherently has a boiling point of 77.1oC, anticipating at these value, according to evidentiary reference “Ethyl acetate”).
Claim 20: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein the forward osmosis membrane is a hollow-fiber membrane, (See paragraph [0185], [0186], Hotta).
Claim 21: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein the forward osmosis membrane comprises a substrate layer and an active layer, and the substrate layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polysulfone, polyethersulfone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene, polypropylene, cellulose-based polymer, polyketone, polyamide, polyimide, polyether ether ketone, and polybenzimidazole, (See paragraph [0140], [0186], [0188], Hotta).
Claim 22: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 21, wherein the active layer is constituted of polyamide, (See paragraph [0142], [0194], Hotta).
Claim 25: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein the feed liquid is supplied continuously to the forward osmosis membrane module and a concentrated feed liquid is delivered continuously from the forward osmosis membrane module, (See paragraph [0052], Fujita).
Claim 26: The feed liquid concentration system according to claim 14, wherein the organic solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of tetrahydrofuran, 2- methyl tetrahydrofuran, 1,4-dioxane, methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, acetonitrile, N,N- dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide, N-methylpyrrolidone, dimethylsulfoxide, sulfolane, chloroform, acetone, methyl butyl ketone, and pyridine, (See paragraph [0264], [0100], Hotta).
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