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 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16 and 17 recite “a distance of 0.003” to 0.050” ” which uses unconventional format of inches. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “a distance of 0.003 inches to 0.050 inches.”
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.
Claim 4-6, 10-13 and 15 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claims 4-6 recite “the ratio of the second end width to the first end width is less than …” are indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “the active surface of the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet faces toward from the collection tube.” The phrase “toward from” is internally inconsistent and unclear and fails to establish whether the active surface faces toward or away from the collection tube. It is respectfully suggested to clarify the intended directional relationship. See MPEP 2173 and 2173.05.
For purposes of prior-art examination, claim 10 is provisionally interpreted as reciting “faces toward the collection tube.”
Claims 11-13 recite “the ratio of the second end width to the first end width is less than …” are indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites “the width S” is indefinite since the phrase lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites “the membrane sheets” in lines 2-3 is indefinite since the phrase lacks an antecedent basis.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Roderick et al., (US 2016, /0008763, hereinafter as “Roderick”) in view of Janneck et al., (US 3,753,712, hereinafter as “Janneck”).
Regarding claim 1, Roderick teaches a spiral-wound membrane filtration element wherein conventional feed-spacer mesh is replaced by deposited or integrated spacing features on a membrane or related element, thereby maintaining axial feed spacing while minimizing flow obstruction. (Abstract; ¶¶ [0004-0005, 0007]). Roderick further teaches that spacer height and shape may be configured to provide axial spacing, turbulence fluid mixing, increased velocity and desired flow path (¶ [0021]). Roderick discloses a spiral-wound water treatment element (Abstract; ¶¶ [0002-0004]), comprising:
(a) center tube (5, Fig. 4B) around which the membrane/permeate-carrier assembly is wound and into which permeate is collected (a collection tube) (Figs. 1A-8B belong to the same embodiment and provide different views of the claimed invention; ¶¶ [0024]);
(b) thin-film composite membrane sheet folded to form a membrane lead (¶ [0035]); (one or more membrane sheets), active/feed-contacting membrane surface suitable for contact with fluid being processed ¶¶ [0024-0035]) (each having a first surface suitable for contacting water to be treated), inactive/support surface opposite the active/feed contacting surface (¶¶ [0009, 0021-0022] (and a second surface, opposite the first surface), folded membrane leaf rolled around the center tube (5, Fig. 4B) to create a spiral-wound element (¶ [0035]) (the membrane sheet spirally wound around the collection tube);
(c) plural edge-spacing features, e.g. discrete strips/dots/lines, disposed/deposited on the active side of one or both sides of the membrane leaves; in the working example a parallel array of raised lines is screen-printed on the active sides of one-half the membrane leaf (¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035]) (plurality of spacing elements disposed on the first surface of a first half of each membrane sheet).
But Roderick does not disclose each spacing element has a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the collection tube that has a first end and a second end and extends from the first end to the second end, wherein the first end is wider than the second end.
However, Janneck teaches a semi-permeable membrane support comprising uniformly distributed upstanding projections which support the membrane and define fluid-flow channels of substantially uniform depth (Abstract; col. 1, lines 6-21; col. 2, lines 22-39). Janneck discloses a height-wise cross-section of an upstanding membrane-support projection col. 2, lines 20-39), (each spacing element has a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the collection tube), truncated-cone projection extending from a proximal/base end to a distal/top end (col. 2, lines 30-42) (that has a first end and a second end and extends from the first end to the second end), truncated-cone projection having a larger base diameter and smaller truncated distal diameter (col. 2, lines 35-42) (wherein the first end is wider than the second end).
Roderick and Janneck are analogous art because each concerns membrane-separation structures employing spacing/support features to maintain membrane separation and define fluid flow channels.
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 spacing elements of Roderick to have Janneck’s truncated-cone geometry because such modification would predictably provide stable membrane support, controlled feed-channel spacing, reduced preferential flow, and improved fluid/flow/mass transfer conditions (Janneck: col. 2 lines 2-19).
In regard to claim 2, Roderick discloses an active-side spacing features deposited directly onto the membrane half (¶¶ [0024-0026]) and further discloses a wider-base becomes the deposited membrane-contacting first end (¶¶ [0033, 0035]) (wherein the first ends of the spacing elements are in contact with the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet), spacing features of one or both sides of the membrane leaves before rolling (Roderick: ¶ [0024]) and a folded leaf subsequently wound around the center tube (¶ [0035]) (wherein the first surface of the first half of the membrane sheet faces away from the collection tube). Selecting the outward-facing one of the opposed active surfaces therefore predictably provides the recited orientation while retaining the same feed-spacing function. It would have been obvious to select the available orientation because Roderick expressly permits active-side spacer placement on one or both leaf surface and each performs the same feed-channel spacing function, thereby maintaining feed spacing during rolling while allowing feed and reject flow through the element (Roderick: (¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035]).
In regard to claim 3, Roderick discloses a directly deposited wider/base ends contacting the membrane half ((¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035) (wherein the first ends of the spacing elements are in contact with the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet), permits spacing elements on either active leaf surface (Roderick: ¶ [0024]); selecting the opposed inward/tube-facing active surface after winding predictably produces the recited orientation (wherein the first surface of the first half of the membrane sheet faces toward the collection tube). It would have been obvious to select the inward-facing alternative because Roderick expressly permits the spacer features on either active surface, thereby retaining the same feed-spacing and flow-channel function without changing the operating principle of the spiral-wound element (Roderick: (¶¶ [0024-0026]).
In regard to claim 7, Roderick discloses spacing features comprising “thermoplastics, reactive polymers, waves, or resins (¶¶ [0018, 0022, 0028]).
In regard to claim 16, Roderick discloses a screen-printed spacing feature that is 0.008 inch high (¶ [0035]). Since the claimed spacing features extend from the corresponding membrane a distance range of 0.003” to 0.050” overlaps the spacing features extend from the corresponding membrane a distance of 0.008” taught by Roderick, the range recited in claim 1 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Roderick in view of Janneck, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of the evidentiary reference Karode et al., (US 2004/0226877 A1, hereinafter as “Karode”).
In regard to claims 4-6, the combination of Roderick, in view of Janneck, teaches the printed membrane spacer having a wider first/base end and narrower second/top end (¶ [0033]) but does not disclose the numerical top-to-base ratio.
With respect to the ratios of the second end width to the first end width, including less than 0.98 (claim 4), less than 0.95 (claim 5) and less than 0.85 (claim 6), configuration modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick, in view of Janneck, does not expressly disclose the claimed the ratio of the second end width to the first end width; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of the second end width to the first end width as claimed since the relative cross-sectional spacer dimensions and strand-intersection angles are important parameters to affect membrane hydraulic performance in order to improve fluid flow, enhance membrane-surface mixing/shear, and reduce pressure drop (Karode: ¶ [0009]). 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Roderick in view of Janneck.
Regarding claim 8, Roderick teaches a spiral-wound membrane filtration element comprising a center tube (5, Fig. 4B), folded membrane sheet/leaves, opposed active and inactive surfaces, and active-side spacing features (Abstract; ¶¶ [0004-0005, 0007]). Roderick further teaches that spacer features may be disposed on the active side of one or both membrane leaves before rolling and that the folded leaf is subsequently wound around the center tube (¶ [0024-0026, 0035]). Roderick discloses a spiral-wound water treatment element (Abstract; ¶¶ [0002, 0004]), comprising:
(a) center tube (5, Fig. 4B) (a collection tube) (¶¶ [0024]);
(b) one or more/multiple membrane leaves assembled about the center tube (¶ [0024, 0035]); (a plurality of membrane sheets), active/feed surface and opposite inactive/support surface (¶¶ [0009, 0021-0024]) (each having an active surface and an inactive surface opposite the active surface), thin-film composite membrane sheet folded in half to make a membrane leaf (¶ [0035])
(wherein each membrane sheet is folded along a fold line forming first and second halves of the membrane sheet), opposed active surfaces defining the feed/side/feed channel in the folded spiral-wound configuration (¶¶ [0024, 0035]) (such that the active surfaces face each other), folded leaf positioned on a permeate carrier attached to the center tube, with the fold approximately 3 inches from the center tube-attachment (¶ [0035]);
(c) plural discrete strips/dots/lines deposited on the active side of one or both membrane leaves; working example includes parallel raised lines screen-printed directly on the active side (¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035]) (wherein each membrane sheet has disposed on the active surface thereof a plurality of spacing elements).
But Roderick does not disclose each spacing element has a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the collection tube that has a first end and a second end and extends from the first end to the second end, wherein the first end is wider than the second end.
However, Janneck teaches a semi-permeable membrane support comprising uniformly distributed upstanding projections which support the membrane and define fluid-flow channels of substantially uniform depth (Abstract; col. 1, lines 6-21; col. 2, lines 22-39). Janneck discloses a height-wise cross-section of an upstanding membrane-support projection (col. 2, lines 20-39), (each spacing element has a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the collection tube), truncated-cone projection extending from a proximal/base end to a distal/top end (col. 2, lines 30-42) (that has a first end and a second end and extends from the first end to the second end), truncated-cone projection having a larger base diameter and smaller truncated distal diameter (col. 2, lines 35-42)(wherein the first end is wider than the second end).
Roderick and Janneck are analogous art because each concerns membrane-separation structures employing spacing/support features to maintain membrane separation and define fluid flow channels.
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 active surface spacing features of Roderick to have Janneck’s truncated-cone cross-section geometry because such modification would predictably provide stable membrane support, controlled feed-channel spacing, reduced preferential flow, and improved fluid/flow/mass transfer conditions (Janneck: col. 2 lines 2-19).
In regard to claim 9, Roderick discloses depositing directly active spacing elements on the membrane half (¶¶ [0024-0026]) and further discloses a wider-base becomes the deposited membrane-contacting first end ((¶¶ [0033, 0035]) (wherein the first ends of the spacing elements are in contact with the active surface of the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet), permits active-side spacing features on one or both membrane-leaf surfaces before winding (Roderick: ¶ [0024]) (wherein the active surface of the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet faces toward from the collection tube). Selecting the outward-facing active surface predictably yields the claim orientation. It would have been obvious to select the such orientation taught by Roderick because the two opposed active surfaces are known alternative mounting surfaces for the same feed-spacing structure, and promotes unobstructed feed flow during and after winding (Roderick: ¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035]).
In regard to claim 10, Roderick discloses a directly deposited active-side spacer bases contacting the membrane (¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035) (wherein the first ends of the spacing elements are in contact with the active surface of the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet), permits active-side spacing features on one or both membrane-leaf surfaces before winding (Roderick: ¶ [0024]); selecting the opposed inward/tube-facing active surface as the printed surface predictably produces the recited orientation (wherein the active surface of the first half of the corresponding membrane sheet faces toward from the collection tube). It would have been obvious to select the inward-facing alternative as taught by Roderick because such configuration permits the spacer features on either active surface, thereby retaining the same feed-spacing and flow-channel function without changing the operating principle of the spiral-wound element (Roderick: (¶¶ [0024-0026, 0035]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Roderick in view of Janneck, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of the evidentiary reference Karode.
In regard to claims 11-13, the combination of Roderick, in view of Janneck, teaches the printed membrane spacer having a wider first/base end and narrower second/top end (¶ [0033]) but does not disclose the numerical top-to-base ratio.
With respect to the ratios of the second end width to the first end width, including less than 0.98 (claim 11), less than 0.95 (claim 12) and less than 0.85 (claim 13), configuration modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Roderick, in view of Janneck, does not expressly disclose the claimed the ratio of the second end width to the first end width; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of the second end width to the first end width as claimed since the relative cross-sectional spacer dimensions and strand-intersection angles are important parameters to affect membrane hydraulic performance in order to improve fluid flow, enhance membrane-surface mixing/shear, and reduce pressure drop (Karode: (¶ [0009])). 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 14, Roderick discloses spacing features comprising “thermoplastics, reactive polymers, waves, or resins (¶¶ [0018, 0022, 0028]).
In regard to claim 17, Roderick discloses a screen-printed spacing feature that is 0.008 inch high (¶ [0035]). Since the claimed spacing features extend from the corresponding membrane a distance range of 0.003” to 0.050” overlaps the spacing features extend from the corresponding membrane a distance of 0.008” taught by Roderick, the range recited in claim 17 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
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