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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004033889 to Yamamura et al. (hereinafter “Yamamura”, see attached English translation) in view of CN 106927560 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”, see attached English translation), and in further view of WO 2019183221 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter “Thomas”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamura teaches an air diffusion method and an air diffusion system using an air diffusion device including a supplier that supplies air (figure 1, #4), and a tank (figure 1, #1) comprising an air diffusion membrane (figure 1, #2) that allows molecular diffusion of the air supplied by the supplier into the tank via a plurality of holes (figure 1, and English translation page 2, lines 1-3). Yamamura teaches that in a biological treatment of wastewater, when aerating the water to be treated in a biological reaction tank, an aeration device is used to generate air bubbles. Moreover, Yamamura teaches a method for cleaning the diffusion holes of a membrane comprising the steps of stopping the supply of air (reads on the limitation “stopping the supply of the oxygen to the membrane support”) to the membrane by closing a valve (figure 1, V1), which controls an amount of air to be discharged to the membrane (English translation page 5, lines 3-8, page 9, lines 13-14, and page 10, lines 12-16) (reads on the limitation “reducing a degree of opening of a valve that controls an amount of gas to be discharged form a second portion of the membrane support”), supplying a washing water to a first portion of the membrane to the inside of the membrane (see figure 1), wherein the washing water is an aqueous solution of an oxidizing agent or an aqueous solution of an acid or base (reads on the limitation “supply a chemical solution from a first portion of the membrane to inside of the membrane”) (see figure 1, and English translation page 5, lines 6-7, page 10, lines 12-16, and page 11, lines 3-6), and supplying compressed air from a first portion to the inside of the membrane (English translation page 5, lines 6-14) (reads on the limitation “supply a second gas from the first portion to the inside of the membrane support”).
Yamamura does no teach a pipe-shaped membrane support.
Wang teaches a method for cleaning a water treatment system comprising a membrane aerated biofilm reactor, wherein the membrane is a hollow fiber membrane (pipe-shaped membrane) (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0036-0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Yamamura for cleaning a system comprising a pipe-shaped membrane support, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Yamamura teaches that the cleaning method is effective for cleaning a membrane of a water treatment apparatus (English translation, page 5, lines 3-8, and page 7, lines 16 to page 8, line 1 of Yamamura), and Wang teaches that it was known in the art that a water treatment system can comprise a hollow fiber membrane (pipe-shaped membrane) (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0036-0038] of Wang).
Yamamura/Wang does not teach the step of supplying a liquid or first gas from the first portion to the inside of the membrane.
Thomas teaches a method for cleaning a membrane comprising the steps of treating the membrane with a chemical, and rinsing the membrane with a rinsing solution or fresh feed (page 9, lines 9-15, and page 20, lines 22-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Yamamura/Wang with the step of supplying a liquid (rinsing liquid) from the first portion to the inside of the membrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Thomas teaches that it is effective to rinse a membrane with a rinsing solution or fresh feed for the purpose of rinsing out the chemical cleaning solution from the membrane (page 9, lines 9-15, and page 20, lines 22-28 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas further teaches that the membrane filaments are composed of an aeration membrane and a biofilm, wherein the aeration membrane is a permeable and a hydrophobic membrane with strong hydrophobicity (English translation [0032] of Wang). In addition, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas teaches that the washing water (aqueous solution of an oxidizing agent or an aqueous solution of an acid or base) (reads on “chemical solution) is effective for removing deposits from the plurality of holes of the membrane (English translation page 11, lines 3-12 of Yamamura). Moreover, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas further teaches that supplying the liquid (rinse liquid) includes discharging the chemical solution inside the plurality of holes to inside of the tank by supplying the liquid (rinse liquid) to the inside of the membrane support (page 9, lines 9-15, and page 20, lines 22-28 of Thomas, and English translation, page 4, lines 12-20 of Yamamura).
Yamamura/Wang/Thomas does not explicitly teach that supplying the second gas includes drying the inside of the plurality of holes and recovering hydrophobicity of the hollow fiber membrane by supplying the second gas to the inside of the membrane support.
However, since the processing conditions and process steps disclosed by Yamamura/Wang/Thomas are similar to those instantly claimed, it would be reasonable expected that supplying the second gas includes drying the inside of the plurality of holes and recovering hydrophobicity of the hollow fiber membrane by supplying the second gas to the inside of the membrane support.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas further teaches that the membrane support is a pipe shape that extends along a vertical axis of the tank and includes a first end portion and a second end portion that are at least partially open toward outside of the membrane support, wherein the first end portion is an end portion on a lower side in the vertical axis, the second end portion is an end portion on an upper side in the vertical axis, the first portion is the first end portion, and the second portion is the second end portion (see figures 2 and 3 of Wang).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas teaches the step of restarting the supply of the air to the membrane (English translation, page 10, line 19 to page 11, line 2 of Yamamura). Moreover, Yamamura teaches that the opening degrees of the air control valve is controlled by the control device based on the air pressure measured by the pressure sensor and/or the time that air is supplied to the air storage section (English translation, page 13, lines 10-14 of Yamamura).
Yamamura/Wang/Thomas does not teach the step of increasing the degree of opening of the valve in response to discharge of the second gas (compressed air) from at least any of the plurality of holes to a side of the tank.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Yamamura/Wang/Thomas with the step of increasing the degree of opening of the valve in response to discharge of the second gas (compressed air) from at least any of the plurality of holes to a side of the tank, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the debris and the washing solution are removed from the plurality of holes of the membrane.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas teaches that the steps of stopping the supply of the air, the supplying of the washing water, the reducing of the degree of opening of the valve, the of supplying of the liquid, and the supply of the second gas are performed in a state where liquid in the tank is in contact with at least a part of an outer surface of the membrane support (English translation, page 4, lines 12-20 of Yamamura).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004033889 to Yamamura et al. (hereinafter “Yamamura”, see attached English translation) in view of CN 106927560 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”, see attached English translation), and WO 2019183221 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter “Thomas”), and in further view of KR 20130029656 to Song (hereinafter “Song”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas does not teach that a shape of the membrane support is a pipe shape that includes both end portions that are at least partially open toward outside of the membrane support, the membrane support includes a curved portion obtained by curving the membrane support such that each of the both end portions faces down in a vertical axis of the tank, the first portion is each of the both end portions, and the second portion is the curved portion.
Song teaches the use of a purification treatment system for treating wastewater, wherein the system comprises a hollow fiber membrane pipe formed to extend a certain length in a 'U' shape and a pair of openings located on one side (English translation [0001, and 0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Yamamura/Wang/Thomas wherein a shape of the membrane support is a pipe shape that includes both end portions that are at least partially open toward outside of the membrane support, the membrane support includes a curved portion obtained by curving the membrane support such that each of the both end portions faces down in a vertical axis of the tank, wherein the first portion is each of the both end portions, and the second portion is the curved portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Yamamura/Wang/Thomas teaches that the cleaning method is effective for cleaning a membrane of a aeration system for treating wastewater in general (English translation page 2, lines 4-7, and page 4, lines 12-20 of Yamamura), and Song teaches that a purification treatment system for treating wastewater can comprise a hollow fiber membrane pipe formed to extend a certain length in a 'U' shape and a pair of openings located on one side (English translation [0001, and 0018] of Song).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004033889 to Yamamura et al. (hereinafter “Yamamura”, see attached English translation) in view of CN 106927560 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”, see attached English translation), and WO 2019183221 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter “Thomas”), and in further view of DE102020205213 to Rontzsch et al. (hereinafter “Rontzsch”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamura/Wang/Thomas further teaches that inlet air can be pure oxygen or air depending on the actual wastewater properties (English translation [0027] of Wang).
Yamamura/Wang/Thomas does not teach that the oxygen is obtained through water electrolysis using renewable energy.
Rontzsch teaches that it was known in the art that oxygen can be obtained through water electrolysis, wherein the oxygen obtained can be used for the food industry, the chemical industry, the metallurgical industry, or for drives and combustion processes (English translation [0015 and 0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamura/Wang/Thomas wherein the oxygen is obtained through water electrolysis using renewable energy, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Rontzsch teaches that oxygen can be obtained through water electrolysis, wherein the oxygen obtained can be used for the chemical industry (English translation [0015 and 0027] of Rontzsch).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714