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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Claim 1 recites “the center tube” (in line 3), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a center tube.”
(2) Claim 1 recites “the first and second halves” (in line 5), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a first and second halves.”
(3) Claim 1 recites “the distance” (in line 5), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a distance.”
(4) Claim 1 recites “the first spacing feature” (in lines 5-6), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a first spacing feature.”
(5) Claim 1 recites “the diameter” (in line 6), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a diameter.”
(6) Claim 1 recites “the number” (in line 6), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a number.”
(7) Claims 2-19 recites “The element of claim” (all in line 1) lacks consistency. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “The spiral wound element of claim”
(8) Claims 5-9 recites “33in2/in3” (claim 5), “35in2/in3” (claim 6), “39in2/in3” (claim 7), “41in2/in3” (claim 8), and “43in2/in3” (claim 9) are not properly formatted based on International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) convention in expressing measurement in SI units. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “33 in2/in3” (claim 5), “35 in2/in3” (claim 6), “39 in2/in3” (claim7), “41 in2/in3” (claim 8) and “43 in2/in3(claim 9).”
(9) Claim 14 recites “the volume” (in line 1), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a volume.”
(10) Claim 17 recites “the area” (in line 1), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “an area.”
(11) Claim 20 recites “(b) “permeable permeate carrier sheets” (in line 6), where the “permeable” term is missing in the “permeate carrier sheet” limitation in claims 20 (line 8), claim 21 (lines 1-3), and claim 22 (lines 1- 4). It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “permeable permeate carrier sheets”.
12) Claim 20 recites “with a region less than 0.1 inch from the fold line having no spacing features”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein a region extending less than 0.1 inch from the fold line having no spacing features”
(13) Claim 21 recites “the preceding permeate carrier sheet” (in line 1), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a preceding permeable permeate carrier sheet.”
(14) Claim 21 recites “the circumference” (in line 3), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a circumference.”
(15) Claim 21 recites “the number” (in line 3), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a number.”
(16) Claim 22 recites “the circumference” (in line 2), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a circumference.”
(17) Claim 22 recites “the number” (in line 3), which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a number.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Haynes et al., (US 7,875,177 B2, hereinafter as “Haynes”) in view of Roderick et al., (US 2021/0379536 A1, hereinafter as “Roderick’536”)
Regarding claim 1, Haynes teaches methods and using membrane leaf packets, spiral wound modules where subject leaf packet comprises a membrane sheet folded upon itself and reinforced with sealant and tape along at least a portion of the fold on the back side of the membrane sheet (Abstract).
Haynes discloses a spiral-wound element module (2, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 directs one embodiment: Fig. 1 is a perspective, partially cut-away view of a spiral wound module, while Fig. 2 is perspective, partially cut-away view of a membrane leaf packet) formed by winding membrane envelopes (4, Fig. 1) and feed-channel spacer sheets (6, Fig. 1) around permeate collection tube (8, Fig. 1) (col. 3, lines 3-7) (a spiral wound element) comprising plurality of membrane envelopes (4, Fig. 1) and folded membrane leaf packets, each comprising membrane sheets (10, Fig. 1) (comprising two or more membrane sheets) (col. 3, lines 3-23), membrane sheet (48, Fig. 2) folded upon itself at fold (50, Fig. 2) to define membrane leaves (56 and 58, Fig. 2) with their front separation surface facing one another (col. 4 line 57 thru col. 5, line 18) (each membrane sheet being folded on itself at a fold line providing first and second membrane halves facing each other), wherein folded membrane leaf packets interleaves with permeate spacers and rolled around permeate collection tube 8 with each fold extending parallel and adjacent to the collection tube (Fig. 1 , col. 3, lines 38-48) (each folded membrane sheet is spirally wound around the center tube with the fold line proximal the center tube), upon winding the two opposed membrane leaves around tube (8, Fig. 1), one membrane half occupies the radially inner winding position relative to the other membrane half (col. 3, lines 16-30) (and the first membrane half forming an inner wind relative to the second membrane half), and the fold area typically extends a few millimeters perpendicularly from the fold (50, Fig. 2) and reinforcement extending beyond the fold area (col. 5, lines 1-18) (tube diameter: 1.5 -1.9 inches; membrane envelopes: 26-30; claimed tube-diameter per sheet is approximately (1.5/30 inch)1.27- (1.9/26 inch) 1.85 mm where the disclosed fold area of a few millimeters encompasses the claimed minimum tube-diameter-per-leaf clearance (the distance from the fold line to the first spacing feature is greater than or equal to the diameter of the center tube (D) divided by the number of membrane sheets (N) with fold lines proximal the center tube).
But Haynes does not disclose each membrane sheet having a plurality of spacing features disposed on a surface of at least one of the first and second halves.
However, Roderick’536 teaches a spiral-wound membrane leaves bearing multiple deposited spacing strips directly on one half of the active membrane surface (¶ [0024]). Roderick’536 discloses a series of parallel deposited strips (23, Fig. 13) on one half of active membrane leaf (21, Fig. 13) defined by fold line (22, Fig. 13) (¶ [0041]) (each membrane sheet having a plurality of spacing features disposed on a surface of at least one of the first and second halves).
Haynes and Roderick’536 are analogous because both concern construction of spiral wound membrane modules containing membrane leaves, feed-channel structures, permeate carriers, and center tubes.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Haynes’s separate feed-spacer with Roderick’s directly deposited spacing strips because the feed-spacing structure have the benefit of increasing flow velocity and fluid shear within the feed-to-reject stream (Roderick: ¶ [0003]).
In regard to claim 2, Roderick’536 discloses a parallel deposited equally spaced continuous strips (23, Fig. 13) positioned on one half of the active side of membrane leaf (21, Fig. 13), the opposing half being free of the depicted deposited strips (¶ [0041]).
In regard to claim 3, Roderick’536 discloses one-side deposited spacer pattern applied to the oppositely designated membrane half while leaving the other half unprinted (¶ [0036])
In regard to claim 4, Haynes discloses permeate-channel spacer sheets positioned between adjacent membrane leaves and attached around permeate collection tube to conduct permeate into tube openings ((¶ [0002-0003]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, and further in view of Shrikhande et al., (US 9,522,363 B2, hereinafter as “Shrikhande”), and evidenced by Henkel (Henkel resin prints directly onto flat sheet membranes, eliminating plastic mesh feed spacers, Henkel, 2021, pp. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Haynes, in view of Roderick’536, discloses a separate feed-spacer deposited spacing strips (Roderick’536: ¶ [0041]) but does not disclose spacing features have a height extending above the corresponding membrane.
But, Haynes in view of Roderick’536, does not teach the areal packing density of the membrane sheet is greater than 33 in2/in3.
However, Shrikhande teaches increasing the active membrane area contained within a spiral wound element of fixed diameter by reducing the thickness contribution of the leaf components and thereby fitting more or longer membrane leaves within the element (Abstract). Shrikhande further teaches component thickness, number of lengths of membrane leaves, active membrane area, and fixed element diameter as interrelated design variables, including packing density of membrane sheets that permit packing of more membrane leaves (112, Fig. 5), vertically, horizontally or otherwise, within the physical dimension of a given housing (Abstract; col. 12, lines 51-59). Henkel further evidences that printed spacers may be made thinner than conventional mesh spacers, allowing more membrane layers with the same element and increasing available membrane area by approximately 20-40% (Henkel: p. 1, paragraph 4 line 1, thru p. 2, line 7).
Shrikhande is analogous art to Haynes and Roderick’536 because each reference relates to spiral-wound membrane element design and addresses optimization of membrane leaf configuration, packing density and active membrane area to improve filtration performance and module efficiency.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the modified Haynes’s deposited-spacer thickness and the corresponding number or length of membrane leaves to obtained an increased areal packing density including greater than 33 in3/in3 as taught by Shrikhande because reducing spacer or leaf-stack thickness increases the amount of active membrane area contained within a fixed element volume, thereby increase permeate flow capacity without increasing the external element dimensions as evidenced by (Shrikhande: col. 3, lines 33-41; Henkel: p. 1, paragraph 4 line 1, thru p. 2, line 7).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Shrikhande.
In regard to claim 6-9, Haynes, in view of Roderick’536 and Shrikhande, does not disclose the areal packing density of the membrane sheet is greater than 33 in2/in3.
With respect to the areal packing density of the membrane sheet, design modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum function conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Shrikhande does not expressly disclose the areal packing density of the membrane sheet; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the m the areal packing density of the membrane sheet is greater than 33 in2/in3, 39 in2/in3, 41 in2/in3 and 43 in2/in3 as claimed since membrane area per fixed element volume is predictably increased by reducing spacer or leaf stack thickness and adding or lengthening membrane leaves, determining a workable higher packing density increasing membrane area within a fixed diameter as taught by Shrikhande (col. 3, lines 33-41), and 20-40% increase in available membrane area through thinner printed spacers as evidenced by Henkel (p. 1, paragraph 4 line 1, thru p. 2, line 7). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Roderick et al., (US 2021/0339203 A1, hereinafter as “Roderick’203”).
Regarding claim 10, Haynes discloses a spiral-wound element module 2 formed by winding membrane envelopes 4 and feed-channel spacer sheets 6 around permeate collection tube 8 (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 3-7) and Roderick’536 discloses a separate feed-spacer deposited spacing strips (Fig. 13, ¶ [0041]).
But Haynes, in view of Roderick’536, does not disclose spacing features have a height extending above the corresponding membrane.
However, Roderick’203 teaches a deposited strips projecting above the membrane surface to define feed-channel height (Abstract; ¶ [0025], right column, claim 4) (the spacing features have a height extending above the corresponding membrane). Roderick’203 discloses a position-dependent spacer features having lower height in the center-tube-proximal region and greater height farther from the center tube (¶ [0025], right column, claim 4). Because Haynes positions the fold proximal to the center tube, the center-tube-proximal regions correspond to the fold-proximal region (col. 3, lines 16-23) (the height of spacing features near the fold line is less than the height of spacing features distant from the fold line).
Haynes, Roderick’536 and Roderick’203 are analogous because these references are directed to construction of spiral wound membrane modules containing membrane leaves, feed-channel structures, permeate carriers, and center tubes.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Roderick’203 teaching to the modified Haynes element because varying spacer height controls local fluid velocity and channel geometry and reduced concentration polarization, thereby improve flow distribution and membrane performance as taught by Roderick’203 (¶ [0003]).
In regard to claim 11, Roderick’203 discloses deposited spacer features whose height varies radially or spirally according to position relative to the center tube and further teaches fixed-height spacer regions (¶¶ [0018,0019]), explains that the spacer-height profile is selected to match channel cross-sections area to changing fluid volume, maintained desired velocity, reduce concentration polarization and scaling, permit longer membrane leaves, and preserve a selected element diameter. It would have been obvious to provide an increasing-height fold-proximal region followed by a constant-height region and to select the transition according to the center tube diameter because both spacer height and the spatial extent of the graded region as adjustable variables used to obtain adequate flow area near the center tube while maintaining uniform rolling and fixed element dimension ((¶ [0019).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Roderick’203.
In regard to claim 12, Roderick’203 discloses varying deposited-feature height spirally and radially and selecting the height profile to optimize volume, flow area, leaf length, and rolling (¶¶ [0005, 0016, 0023]); one center-tube circumference corresponds to one complete initial winding around the tube (¶ [0002]) and therefore defines a predictable geometric boundary between the first-wrap transition region and subsequent winding layers. It would have been obvious to extend the graded region through approximately the first center-tube wrap and use a constant height thereafter because the largest relative change in radial winding geometry occurs during the first wrap, whereas subsequent layers approach a more uniform winding condition, thereby accommodating the first -wrap geometry while maintaining uniform channel height and rolling in the remainder of the element (Roderick’203: ¶ [0023]).
In regard to claim 13, Roderick’203 discloses selecting a graded spacer profile while maintaining constant external element diameter and teaches that reducing or grading spacer height permits longer leaf length and additional membrane area in an element having that fixed diameter (¶¶ [0016, 0019]). It would have been obvious to continue the increasing-height profile through a distance corresponding to the selected element diameter and employ constant-height features thereafter because the extent of the height gradation, leaf length, overall element volume, and external element diameter as interrelated design variables. Selecting the completed-element diameter as the transition distance would predictably accommodate the radial geometry over an initial characteristic element-scale distance and provide constant feed-channel height through the remaining leaf length (Roderick’203: ¶ [0016]).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 1, and evidenced by Siddiqui et al., (Porosity of spacer-filled channels in spiral-wound membrane systems: Quantification methods and impact on hydraulic characterization, Water Research, 2017, 119, pp. 304-311, hereinafter as “Siddiqui”).
In regard to claim 14, Roderick’536 teaches deposited spacer features with selectable width, height, spacing, continuity and pattern (¶¶ [0024, 0027, 0029]) where those dimensions determine the volume of deposited spacer material relative to the total feed-channel volume but does not disclose spacing features that occupy less than 7% of the volume between the membrane halves.
With respect to the spacing features that occupy less than 7% of the volume between the membrane halves, design modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating function fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick’536 does not expressly disclose the claimed spacing features that occupy less than 7% of the volume between the membrane halves; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the spacing features that occupy less than 7% of the volume between the membrane halves as claimed since that spacer-filled-channel porosity and spacer solid fraction are established quantitative parameters governing hydraulic behavior in spiral wound membrane channels as evidenced by Siddiqui (p. 305, left column, lines 2-50) and because increasing channel porosity and reducing obstructing spacer volume predictably increases open flow area and reduces hydraulic resistance subject to retaining sufficient membrane support (Siddiqui: p. 305, left column, lines 2-50) thereby reduces pressure drop and improved hydraulic efficiency and membrane performance (Siddiqui: Abstract; p. 310, right column, 4.4. Recommendation section lines 1-6). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Roderick’203”.
In regard to claim 15 and 16, Roderick’536 teaches deposited spacer features with selectable width, height, spacing, continuity and pattern (¶¶ [0024, 0027, 0029). Those dimensions determine the volume of deposited spacer material relative to the total feed-channel volume but does not disclose spacing features that occupy less than 5 and 2% of the volume between the membrane halves.
With respect to the spacing features that occupy less than 5 and 2% of the volume between the membrane halves, design modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating function fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick’536 does not expressly disclose the claimed spacing features that occupy less than 5% and 2% of the volume between the membrane halves; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the spacing features that occupy less than 5% and 2% of the volume between the membrane halves as claimed since that spacer-filled-channel porosity and spacer solid fraction are established quantitative parameters governing hydraulic behavior in spiral wound membrane channels as evidenced by Siddiqui (p. 305, left column, lines 2-50) and because increasing channel porosity and reducing obstructing spacer volume predictably increases open flow area and reduces hydraulic resistance subject to retaining sufficient membrane support (Siddiqui: p. 305, left column, lines 2-50) thereby reduces pressure drop, fewer stagnant regions and improved hydraulic efficiency (Siddiqui: Abstract; p. 310, right column, 4.4. Recommendation section lines 1-6). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 17, Roderick’536 teaches deposited spacer whose width, discontinuity, spacing, and pattern are selectively varied (¶¶ [0024, 0027, 0029]). These parameters directly determine the feature footprint on the membrane but does not disclose the spacing features occupy less than 7% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited.
With respect to the spacing features occupy less than 7% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited, design modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating function fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick’536 does not expressly disclose the claimed spacing features occupy less than 7% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the he spacing features occupy less than 7% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited as claimed since decreasing feature width and increasing pitch leave a larger unobstructed membrane and flow area, thereby reducing flow obstruction and increase flow velocity and fluid shear within the feed-to-reject stream (Roderick’536: ¶ [0003]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, as applied to claim 17, further in view of Roderick’203”.
In regard to claim 18 and 19, Roderick’536 teaches deposited spacer whose width, discontinuity, spacing, and pattern are selectively varied (¶¶ [0024, 0027, 0029]). These parameters directly determine the feature footprint on the membrane but does not disclose the spacing features occupy less than 5 and 2% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited.
With respect to the spacing features occupy less than 5 and 2% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited, design modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating function fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick’536 does not expressly disclose the claimed spacing features occupy less than 7% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the he spacing features occupy less than 5% and 2% of the area of the membrane on which they are deposited as claimed since decreasing feature width and increasing pitch leave a larger unobstructed membrane and flow area, thereby reducing flow obstruction, increase exposed membrane area and reduce feed-channel pressure loss (Roderick’536: ¶ [0003]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes, in view of Roderick’536, and Solie (US 5,538,642, hereinafter as “Solie”).
Regarding claim 20, Haynes teaches an assembly comprising:
(a) spiral would module containing multiple folded membrane leaf packets; membrane sheets (48, Fig. 2) having front separation surface (52, Fig. 2) and opposite supporting surface (54, Fig. 2) (col. 4, lines 58-62) (a plurality of folder membranes, each folded membrane comprising a membrane sheet having an active surface and an inactive surface opposite the active surface); membrane sheet (48, Fig. 2) folded at fold (50, Fig. 2) to form opposed leaves (56 and 58, Fig. 2) (col. 5, lines 1-32)( the membrane sheet folded in half along a fold line with the active surfaces facing each other); Haynes further teaches a mechanically vulnerable region extending few millimeters from the fold; a 2.54-mm portion of Hayne’s protected few-millimeter fold region (col. 5, lines 1-9).
But Haynes does not teach (I) the membrane sheet has disposed thereon a plurality of spacing features; (II) a plurality of permeable permeate carrier sheets; (III) a center tube; (IV) wherein the permeate carrier sheets are spirally wound about the center tube and welded together with a folded membrane in between each pair of permeate carrier sheets.
Regarding (I), Roderick’536 teaches deposited spacing strips on one active half of a folded membrane leaf (¶ [0036]) (the membrane sheet has disposed thereon a plurality of spacing features)
Regarding (II) Solie discloses spiral wound membrane elements have permeate flow channels attached to a porous polymeric mandrel in a regular and closely spaced array where the flow channels are attached to the mandrel by means of ultrasonic welding (Abstract). Solie discloses a plurality of discontinuous permeate-flow-channel spacer sheet (col. 4, lines 62-67) (a plurality of permeable permeate carrier sheets)
Regarding (III) Solie discloses a porous hollow-core mandrel (31, Fig. 1) having permeate opening (col. 4, lines 40-54) (center tube)
Regarding (IV) Solie discloses the permeate-flow-channel sheets and associated membrane leaves tightly wound around mandrel (31, Fig. 1) (col. 12, lines 7-12) (wherein the permeate carrier sheets are spirally wound about the center tube); successive permeate carrier sheets ultrasonically joined during assembly while folded membrane envelopes are inserted between adjacent permeate carrier sheets prior to winding (Abstract; col. 9, line 1, thru col 10, line 41) (welded together with a folded membrane in between each pair of permeate carrier sheets)
Solie is analogous art to Haynes and Roderick’536 because each reference relates to spiral-wound membrane element construction and addresses the assembly and positioning of membrane sheets and permeate carrier sheets around a center tube to improve winding, assembly reliability and membrane module performance.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Solie’s welded permeate-carrier assembly into Haynes’s spiral-wound membrane element modified by Roderick’536’s deposited spacing features because ultrasonic welding provides a reliable and repeatable permeate-carrier assembly while maintaining accurate membrane positioning during winding (Solie: col. 3, lines 32-40).
In regard to claim 21, Solie discloses a successive permeate carrier sheets sequentially attached after incremental rotation of the mandrel (31, Fig. 1) resulting in circumferential spacing corresponding to the center-tube circumferences divided among the membrane leaves (C/N) (col. 7, lines 48-52). It would have been obvious to employ Solie’s sequential circumferential spacing in Haynes’s spiral wound assembly because uniform carrier spacing improves winding symmetry, permeate flow distribution and element manufacturability (Solie: col. 4 lines 3-19).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Haynes in view of Roderick’536, and Solie, as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Knappe (US 2009/0145838 A1, hereinafter as “Knappe”).
Regarding claim 22, Solie teaches that after formation of the initial wrap, successive permeate carrier sheets are sequentially ultrasonically joined following incremental mandrel rotation corresponding to approximately the tube circumference divided by the number of membrane leaves (C/N) (col. 7, lines 48-52) (a third permeate carrier sheet is welded to the second permeate carrier sheets at a distance by no more than the circumference of the center tube divided by the number of permeate carrier sheets).
But Haynes, in view of Roderick’536 and Solie, does not teach a second permeate carrier sheet is welded to a first permeate carrier sheet at a distance at least the circumference of the center tube.
However, Knappe teaches a membrane leaf (L, Fig. 2) (first permeate carrier sheets) includes an extended inner portion initially wrapped completely around the permeate tube (2, Fig. 2) before the next membrane leaf (L, Fig. 2) (second permeate carrier sheet) is incorporated, thereby providing an initial circumferential offset of at least one complete tube circumference (¶ [0050]) (a second permeate carrier sheet is welded to a first permeate carrier sheet at a distance at least the circumference of the center tube).
Knappe is analogous art to Haynes, Roderick’536 and Solie because each reference pertains to spiral-wound membrane element construction and addresses arrangement, positioning, and assembly of folded membrane leaves and permeate carrier sheets around a center tube to improve manufacturability and filtration performance.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Knappe’s extended first permeate carrier to the modified Haynes’s welded permeate-carrier assembly because initial complete wrap provides robust element construction that is capable of withstanding high differential pressures at high temperatures without telescoping (Knappe: (¶ [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 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, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights