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 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed Application SA1020245240, filed on 09/19/2024, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. However, applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: the foreign priority document has not been placed of record in the file.
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 11-16 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.
Claim 11 recites “the air circulation pump” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claims 12-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 11.
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 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 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koirala et al. (Performance Analysis of an Eductor-Based Membrane Distillation Unit, Water 2022, 14, 3624. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223624, hereinafter “Koirala”), in view of Koo et al. (WO 2013/025012 A1, hereinafter “Koo”).
In regard to claim 1, Koirala discloses an eductor-based membrane distillation unit (Title; Abstract), and discloses a system for water desalination (page 9, Figure 4), comprising:
a membrane module (VMD module in conjunction with saline water transport apparatuses in Fig. 4), comprising (pages 9-10, Section 3. Eductor-Based Membrane Distillation):
a feed tank (Urn for holding Saline hot water tank, Fig. 4) configured to receive salt water;
a heater configured to heat the salt water from the feed tank to form water vapor (an electric urn heats the saline water and transport the hot saline water to the feed side of the VMD module, thereafter a vapor formed therein transport membrane pore (Figure 3, (b) Heat and mass transfer in DCMD); and
a membrane distillation unit (VMD module in Fig. 4) comprising in order, a feed chamber, a membrane and a vapor chamber, wherein the feed chamber is configured to receive the salt water and the water vapor from the heater, and the membrane is configured to let the water vapor pass from the feed chamber through the membrane to the vapor chamber (see the description in page 9, 3.1 Concept Discussion; Figure 3 (b)),
an eductor module (Eductor and water circulating apparatuses in Fig. 4), comprising:
an eductor including a first inlet configured to receive a primary fluid stream (a chilled fresh water from Sump, Fig. 4) and a second inlet configured to receive a secondary fluid stream (Vapor, Fig. 4) so that the primary fluid stream and the secondary fluid stream mix to form a mixed stream (the chilled fresh water and Vapor are mixed in the Eductor); and
a freshwater tank (Sump, Fig. 4) configured to receive at least the water vapor of the mixed stream,
wherein the second inlet of the eductor is connected to an outlet of the vapor chamber (the chilled fresh water and Vapor are mixed in the Eductor) so that the eductor is configured to receive the water vapor from the vapor chamber as the secondary fluid stream,
wherein the vapor chamber does not include an outlet that is configured to receive a sweeping gas (there is no outlet in the vapor chamber to receive a sweeping gas),
wherein the vapor chamber is under a vacuum (the pressure in the vapor chamber is sub-atmospheric due to the operation of Eductor).
But Koirala discloses an eductor module for generating vacuum in the vapor chamber, but does not explicitly disclose an ejector module for generating vacuum in the vapor chamber.
It is noted that both eductor and ejector use a motive fluid as a primary fluid to generate vacuum in a suction chamber to transport a secondary fluid in the suction chamber, both operate on the same Venturi effect to pump or mix fluids. Both eductor and ejector use the Bernoulli principle, converting pressure energy into velocity through a nozzle to create a low-pressure suction zone.
However, Koo discloses a freshwater separator employing a membrane distillation method, and a forward osmosis desalination system comprising the freshwater separator (Abstract). In an embodiment shown in Figs. 2-4, Koo discloses a vacuum can be formed in the membrane contactor 400 (especially in the cartridge 420) by using an ejector 460 (paragraph [74]).
It is noted that both the Koirala and Koo references direct a freshwater separator using a membrane distillation apparatus.
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 distillation unit of Koirala to provide an ejector module for generating vacuum in the vapor chamber as taught by Koo, because the ejector module for generating vacuum is a known, effective mechanism for generating a vacuum in the membrane as taught by Koo (Figures 2-4; paragraph [74]).
In regard to claim 2, as set forth above, Koirala, in view of Koo, discloses the use of ejector for generating vacuum in the vapor chamber. Koirala discloses the eductor (ejector) is configured so that the primary fluid stream (chilled fresh water, Fig. 4) accelerates within the eductor (ejector) to create the vacuum to suck the secondary fluid stream (Vapor, Fig. 4) from the vapor chamber (Koirala, Fig.4; Fig. 1, (b) Construction of eductor with mechanism).
In regard to claim 3, Koirala discloses the vacuum creates or enlarges a pressure differential across the membrane between the feed chamber and the vapor chamber to suck the water vapor from the feed chamber to the vapor chamber (Figure 1, (b) Construction of eductor with mechanism; page 9, Section 3.1 Concept Discussion).
In regard to claim 4, Koirala discloses the system does not comprise a vacuum pump (Fig. 4, the eductor (ejector) functioning as vacuum pump, thereby no need to include a vacuum pump).
In regard to claim 5, Koirala discloses the membrane is a hydrophobic microporous membrane (VMD module in Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 6, Koirala discloses the membrane module (VMD module in conjunction with saline water transport apparatuses in Fig. 4) further comprises a water circulation pump (Pump, Fig. 4 and/or pump that transport Saline hot water to the VMD module).
In regard to claim 7, Koirala discloses:
an outlet of the feed tank is operationally connected to an inlet of the water circulation pump (the outlet of Urn that transport Saline hot water is connected to an inlet of the water circulation pump that transport Saline hot water to the VMD module, Fig.4),
an outlet of the water circulation pump is operationally connected to an inlet of the heater (both an inlet and an outlet of the water circulation pump is operationally connected to an inlet of the heater since the water circulation pump is operated for transporting Saline hot water to the VMD module, Fig.4),
an outlet of the heater is operationally connected to an inlet of the feed chamber (an outlet of the heater is connected to an inlet of the feed chamber of VMD module via the water circulation pump), and
an outlet of the feed chamber is operationally connected to an inlet of the feed tank (an outlet of the feed chamber of the VMD module is operationally connected to an inlet of the feed tank via the water circulation pump).
In regard to claim 8, Koirala discloses the primary fluid stream comprises water (chilled fresh water), and the ejector module further comprises a water circulation pump (Pump connected to the Sump, Fig.4).
In regard to claim 9, Koirala discloses
an outlet of the freshwater tank is operationally connected to an inlet of the water circulation pump (outlet of the Sump is connected to an inlet of the Pump, Fig. 4),
an outlet of the water circulation pump is operationally connected to the first inlet of the eductor (ejector) (an outlet of the water circulation pump is operationally connected to the first inlet of the eductor (ejector), and
an outlet of the eductor (ejector) is operationally connected to an inlet of the freshwater tank (Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 19, Koirala discloses the presence of pressure sensors and thermocouples, and monitoring of inlet, outlet, and suction pressures and temperatures. Koirala discloses the presence of data logger (pages 9-10, Section 3.2. Experimental Set-Up and Description). Therefore, the recited control unit is considered obvious over the teachings of Koirala.
In regard to claim 20, per MPEP 2144.04, the duplication of parts is considered obvious over the teachings Koirala. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koirala, in view of Koo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chidambaran et al. (US 2022/0363570 A1, hereinafter “Chidambaran”).
In regard to claim 10, Koirala, in view of Koo, does not explicitly disclose the features of the primary fluid stream comprise air and the ejector module further comprises an air blower.
However, Chidambaran discloses methods and strictures for purification or volume reduction of a brine by an advanced vacuum distillation process (AVMD) to achieve higher flux by pas a sage of vapors through an AVMD distillation unit (Abstract). In an embodiment shown in Fig. 4A-4B, Chidambaran discloses steam or pneumatically driven ejectors 34 are used to apply vacuum as shown in FIG. 4B (paragraph [0026]). The pneumatically driven ejectors directs a use of air and a presence of an air blower.
It is noted that both the Koirala, Koo and Chidambaran references direct a freshwater separator using a membrane distillation apparatus.
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 distillation unit of Koirala, in view of Koo, to provide the features of the primary fluid stream comprises air and the ejector module further comprises an air blower as suggested by Chidambaran, because pneumatically driven ejectors being used to apply vacuum is a known, effective mechanism for generating a vacuum in the membrane separator as taught by Chidambaran (FIG. 4B; paragraph [0026]).
In regard to claim 11, Koirala discloses an outlet of the eductor (ejector) is operationally connected to an inlet of the freshwater tank (Fig. 4). Since the teachings from Koirala, Koo and Chidambaran direct the features of the primary fluid stream comprises air and the ejector module further comprises an air blower, as set forth above, the claimed features of “an inlet of the air blower is configured to receive the air from an ambient environment, and an outlet of the air circulation pump is operationally connected to the first inlet of the ejector” is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Koirala, Koo and Chidambaran.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koirala, in view of Koo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Helsen (US 2018/0273402 A1).
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Koirala, in view of Koo, does not explicitly disclose the features of the membrane module further comprises a power source configured to power the heater such as solar power.
However, Helsen discloses a system and method for purifying water provides a feed solution water stream having a first osmotic pressure and a temperature T1, on a feed side of a semipermeable membrane (Abstract). In an embodiment shown in Figs. 1-2, Helsen discloses solar power for supplying energy to the desalination system for water purification (paragraphs [0022]-[0029]).
It is noted that both the Koirala, Koo and Helsen references direct a freshwater separator using a membrane distillation apparatus.
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 distillation unit of Koirala, in view of Koo, to provide the features of the membrane module further comprises a power source configured to power the heater such as solar power as suggested by Helsen, because the features of the membrane module further comprises a power source configured to power the heater such as solar power is a known, effective energy supplying mechanism for providing energy needed to the desalination system for water purification as taught by Helsen (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0022]-[0029]).
Claim Objections
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, such as incorporating dependent claims 10, 11 AND 12 into an independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 12-16 in the instant application are allowed if previously presented objection to claims 12-16 are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 12-16. The concept of a system for water desalination, comprising a bubble column dehumidifier module that comprises n number of stages as recited in claim 12 is considered novel over cited prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
