Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (CON of 14/058,193 filed 18 October 2013, which has PRO 61/715,451, filed 18 October 2012) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18-27, 29, 30, and 32-34 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, SERAFIN discloses a system for sorting and classifying particles (p0005). The system 20 comprises a solution vessel 22 (i.e., a reservoir holding a fluid sample), pumps 32, 34 and associated check valves 36, 38 (i.e., actuating integral valving), tangential flow filter assembly 100, valve 91, and accumulator 106 (i.e., a fluid dispenser source for collecting concentrated samples from the cartridge staged filters; p0034-0036, p0039, p0048). Pumps 32, 34 draw solution 26 from vessel 22 and deliver the solution at a desired pressurization (i.e., a concentrating unit… to move the fluid sample through the cartridge; p0036). The tangential flow filter assembly 100 further comprises one or more filter elements 70 within a filter assembly 72 (p0039), e.g., four membranes (i.e., a fractionation and concentration cartridge including two or more staged filters; p0055, FIG. 4). The valve 91 is located downstream the permeate side of the tangential flow filter assembly 100 and allows for the pressurization of collected permeate back to the filter elements 70 (i.e., a permeate pressure device in fluid communication with the cartridge; p0048).
The limitations “wherein the cartridge is adapted to allow all of the fluid sample to pass through the staged filters in a substantially unidirectional flow” and “wherein the fluid sample is moved through the concentrating unit, then the concentrated samples are eluted from the filters and dispensed” are directed to materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and manners and methods by which the claimed system is used and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). In this case, the manner by which fluid sample passes through the system is not subject to patentability because such a manner does not structurally impact nor functionally alter the claimed elements of the system, i.e., the prior art-disclosed system for sorting and classifying particles may certainly be operated in such a way that all of any fluid sample passes through each of the staged filters given sufficient time or driving force, e.g., vacuum/negative pressure. The fact that the prior art also teaches tangential flow does not preclude the ability for the system to allow all of any fluid to pass through each filter.
Even further, the limitation “wherein the cartridge is adapted to allow all of the fluid sample to pass through the staged filters in a substantially unidirectional flow” is considered an intended use of the claimed system. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04). The prior art discloses all components of the claimed system, i.e., a reservoir, a fractionation and concentration cartridge with two or more staged filters, a permeate pressure device in communication with the cartridge, a concentrating unit with actuating valves, and a fluid dispenser source are all taught by SERAFIN. The “adapted to” language requiring all of the fluid sample to pass through the staged filters does not alter or change the structure or function of each of these components nor does this language change the structure or function of the overall claimed system.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12¸ SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses pressure transducer 74 measuring pressure of the inflowing solution to the tangential flow filter 100 (i.e., wherein a flow sensor is in fluid communication with the flow of the fluid sample into the cartridge; p0044).
Regarding Claim 13, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses flow meter 94 on the permeate flow out of the cartridge (i.e., wherein a flow sensor is in fluid communication with the flow of the fluid sample out of the cartridge; p0048).
Regarding Claim 18, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses that the membranes have progressively smaller pore sizes such that upstream membranes have greater pore sizes than downstream membranes, which have smaller pore sizes (i.e., wherein the staged filters have porous surfaces in series of decreasing pore sizes; p0055).
The limitation requiring that “the staged filters have porous surfaces… for capture of particles from the fluid sample” is directed toward an intended use of the claimed invention. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). SERAFIN further discloses that certain particle sizes can be selectively captured on intervening membranes between the first and last porous membranes of the filter assembly (p0057, p0061), indicating that each membrane is capable of capturing particles from the fluid surface.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses the membrane assembly comprises membranes separated by flow distribution plates (i.e., wherein adjacent staged filters are separated by an interstitial space; wherein the staged filters are separated by a filter support; p0055; FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 21, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. The claimed limitation requiring that “the fluid sample is introduced into the cartridge perpendicular to a surface of each staged filter” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). As seen in FIGs. 2-4, sample fluid is directed toward the membranes of the membrane assembly in a substantially perpendicular direction to the surface of each membrane.
Regarding Claim 22, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses that the portion of solution 26 that passes through the filter element 70 flows to a manifold 90 (p0047). While SERAFIN is deficient in explicitly disclosing an outlet port per se, such a disclosure implies an outlet port after the membrane assembly inlet and filter elements. SERAFIN further discloses the membrane assembly comprises membranes separated by flow distribution plates (i.e., alternating layers of… spacers and staged filters positioned serially between the inlet port and the outlet port; p0055; FIG. 4), i.e., spacer plates (p0065), made of, e.g., polypropylene (i.e., plastic spacers; p0069).
The limitation “wherein all of the fluid sample that enters into the inlet port passes through the outlet port” is directed to materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 23, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 22. While SERAFIN is deficient in explicitly disclosing “a longitudinal axis”, FIGs. 2-4 clearly show that the alternating membrane assembly contains staged filters having surfaces running perpendicular to the general direction of flow through the filters; when further considered with p0047, the flow of solution through the filter assembly generally runs along an arbitrary axis through the assembly (i.e., wherein the inlet port, staged filters, and outlet port are longitudinally aligned along a single axis). The limitation requiring these elements being “positioned” along a longitudinal axis is so broad that anything can be considered to be “positioned” along any axis.
Regarding Claim 24, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 23. FIGs. 2-4 clearly show that an arbitrary axis through the membranes is perpendicular to each filter.
Regarding Claim 25, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 22. SERAFIN further discloses that the membranes have progressively smaller pore sizes such that upstream membranes have greater pore sizes than downstream membranes, which have smaller pore sizes (i.e., wherein the staged filters are arranged in series of decreasing pore size; p0055). As further shown in FIGs. 2-4, there are volume chambers adjacent each side of each membrane (i.e., the alternating layers of plastic spacers and staged filters creating a plurality of internal volume chambers adjacent each porous surface of each staged filter).
The limitation requiring that “the staged filters are… for capture of particles from the fluid sample” is directed toward an intended use of the claimed invention. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). SERAFIN further discloses that certain particle sizes can be selectively captured on intervening membranes between the first and last porous membranes of the filter assembly (p0057, p0061), indicating that each membrane is capable of capturing particles from the fluid surface.
Regarding Claim 26, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 25. As seen in FIGs. 2-4, sample fluid is directed toward the membranes of the membrane assembly in a substantially perpendicular direction to the surface of each membrane (i.e., along an arbitrary longitudinal axis). The claimed limitation requiring that “the cartridge is adapted to direct flow of the fluid sample… in a single pass” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). As seen in FIGs. 2-4, sample fluid is directed toward the membranes of the membrane assembly in a substantially perpendicular direction to the surface of each membrane.
Regarding Claim 27, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 26. The claimed limitation requiring that “all of the fluid sample that enters into the fluid port passes through the outlet port while the particles are retained at a given staged filter according to particle size and do not pass to a subsequent staged filter if they are larger than the pore size of the given staged filter” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). As further disclosed by SERAFIN, the membranes have pores sized such that only desirable particle sizes are captured or prevented from passing through (i.e., particles are retained at a given staged filter according to particle size and do not pass to a subsequent staged filter if they are larger than the pore size of the given staged filter; p0060).
Regarding Claim 29, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further discloses each membrane have unique pore sizes, e.g., one membrane has a pore size of approximately 20 µm whereas others separately have pore sizes of about 5 µm, 2 µm, and 0.8 µm (i.e., wherein each of the staged filters has a porous surface with all pores on a given staged filter being of a constant size; p0056).
Regarding Claim 30, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN further shows in FIGs. 2-4 the membranes are flat membranes (i.e., wherein the staged filters are one or more of a flat membrane filter…).
Regarding Claim 32, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. The claimed limitation requiring that “elution is performed tangential to a surface of each staged filter” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 33, SERAFIN discloses all structural and functional limitations as summarized in the rejection of Claim 11. Regarding the limitation “the dilute feed suspension is moved through the concentrating unit, then the fractionated and concentrated samples are eluted from the staged filters and dispensed into the separate reservoirs”, such a limitation is directed to materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and manners and methods by which the claimed system is used and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). In this case, the manner by which fluid sample passes through the system is not subject to patentability because such a manner does not structurally impact nor functionally alter the claimed elements of the system, i.e., the prior art-disclosed system for sorting and classifying particles may certainly be operated as claimed.
Regarding Claim 34, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 33. While SERAFIN is deficient in explicitly disclosing a “single longitudinal axis”, FIGs. 2-4 clearly show that the alternating membrane assembly contains staged filters having surfaces running perpendicular to the general direction of flow through the filters; when further considered with p0047, the flow of solution through the filter assembly generally runs along an arbitrary axis through the assembly (i.e., an inlet port and an outlet port aligned along a single longitudinal axis with a fluid path of the staged filters positioned serially between the inlet port and the outlet port, wherein the substantially unidirectional flow is along the single longitudinal axis). The limitation requiring these elements being “aligned” along a longitudinal axis is so broad that anything can be considered to be “aligned” along any axis.
The claimed limitation requiring that “wherein all of the liquid of the fluid sample that enters into the inlet port passes through the outlet port in a single pass” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed system and therefore, holds no patentable weight. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). Any one of ordinary skill in the art can use the claimed system only once for any given fluid sample and therefore, pass the liquid of the fluid sample in a single pass.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1), as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of ALBURTY et al. (US PGPub 2009/0101575 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 25. SERAFIN is deficient in disclosing a foam injection port at each end of the plurality of internal volume chambers and a retentate port at each opposite end of the plurality of internal volume chambers.
ALBURTY teaches a filtrate system for concentrating particles entrained in a fluid (p0020). In a tangential flow method, concentrator cells extract trapped particles on a surface of a filter on the retentate side using a small volume of foamed wash buffer; a vacuum is applied to a retentate port 108 and a flush port 102 is opened to allow a foam to flush captured particles off of the inside surface of the filter (i.e., a foam injection port at each end of the plurality of internal volume chambers and a retentate port at each opposite end of the plurality of internal volume chambers; p0199-200). ALBURTY further discloses these concentrator cells may be deployed in series (p0024). Advantageously, such a system provides for the rapid cleaning and resuspension of particles concentrated on the retentate-side of filter surfaces (p0019). Thus, at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a foam injection port at each end of the plurality of internal volume chambers and a retentate port at each opposite end as taught by ALBURTY in the filter assembly taught by SERAFIN.
Claim 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of BAURMEISTER et al. (US Patent 6,544,423).
Regarding Claim 31, SERAFIN discloses the system of Claim 11. SERAFIN is deficient in disclosing an elution buffer distribution manifold including a flow control orifice in fluid communication with the cartridge.
BAURMEISTER teaches a membrane module for the fractionation of solutions of particles (c12/59-67) utilizing an apparatus with a plurality of sequential stages of membranes in a single unit housing(c19/59-c20/5). Fluid to be treated is introduced through an inlet distribution space (i.e., a distribution manifold; c5/64-65). Adjacent the distribution space is a cavity opening into a first filtration stage (i.e., a flow control orifice; c24/36-38). Advantageously, such a distribution space enables uniform fluid flow into the membrane module (c7/36-41). At the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a distribution space as
taught by BAURMEISTER in the filter assembly disclosed by SERAFIN.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/remarks filed 06 June 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant has failed to address the Specification of the previous Office Action 11 October 2024. No substitute specification has been filed. The attempt to amend the specification filed 06 June 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because:
the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing;
a marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the clean copy); and/or
a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the marked-up copy).
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 20 have addressed the Claim Objection of Claim 20; this objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 9-12) with respect to the rejections of Claims 11-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and of Claims 11-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 11-13, 18-27, 29, 30, and 32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1), Applicant argues the following:
“Adapted to” is structurally limiting (pg. 13-14); Applicant argues the Office Action’s characterization that the claim scope is not structurally limited by such clauses is improper and that such clauses should hold patentable weight “since it forms a physical modification which specifically limits the structure of the cartridge”.
SERAFIN has bypass flow (pg. 14-17); and
SERAFIN has multi-directional flow (pg. 17-18).
Regarding the rejections of Claim 28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1) in view of ALBURTY et al. (US PGPub 2009/0101575 A1) (pg. 23-27) and Claim 31 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SERAFIN et al. (US PGPub 2003/0185974 A1) in view of BAURMEISTER et al. (US Patent 6,544,423) (pg. 27-28), Applicant argues the following:
No prima facie case of obviousness has been established for the combination of SERAFIN with ALBURTY;
The rejection relied upon for Claim 31 was previously overcome in parent application 14/058,193.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), no “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause requires any additional structural limitation or “physical modification” as argued. As such, the disclosed prior art wholly reads upon or makes obvious such “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses because the prior art discloses or makes obvious all other structural/functional limitations. Even further, the claims only require that the cartridge is adapted to “allow” fluid sample to flow through, i.e., there is no explicit requirement for the fluid sample to flow through—only that the cartridge provides the capability for such a function which SERAFIN certainly does.
Regarding (2)-(3), again, Applicant is seemingly arguing that the claims have definitively required all of the fluid sample to flow through the cartridge. However, the claim has only required that the cartridge possesses the capability for such a function to occur and does not explicitly require such an occurrence, i.e., “the cartridge is adapted to allow”. Even further, Applicant’s arguments are directed toward manners or methods by which the claimed system is utilized; patentability of a system is dependent on its structure and function—if the claims further claim functions with optional language (e.g., “to allow”), such function need only be shown to be possible by the prior art. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding (4), Applicant seemingly disagrees with the Office Action’s cited motivation for combining SERAFIN with ALBURTY primarily because the cited advantage by ALBURTY is already taught by SERAFIN. SERAFIN teaches rapid cleaning of retentate-side filter surfaces whereas ALBURTY teaches the use of foam injection ports to promote such cleaning. SERAFIN is silent as to the use of such ports; ALBURTY merely teaches a known structure of foam injection ports aids in achieving this outcome. Such a clear and articulated teaching in the prior art would motivate any one of skill in the art to utilize in SERAFIN. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding (5), it is noted that the specifics of the parent application may or may not apply to the current claim rejection. Applicant further argues that BAURMEISTER discloses a sealed fluid treatment device and thereby presents a device “that is the opposite of the present subject matter in that the present subject matter serves to remove substances from a fluid in sequential steps while Baurmeister serves to expose the fluid to a different substance at each step” and because of this, the Office Action “destroyed the teaching of the reference to make a theoretical point”. Applicant has cherry-picked certain embodiments of BAURMEISTER to support their narrow argument. BAURMEISTER may have certainly disclosed a closed system and may have disclosed the addition of treatment chemicals; however, the prior art clearly teaches the use of a distribution manifold for introducing fluids by uniform means. Such a teaching would provide advantages obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply to SERAFIN to promote more efficient staged filtration. The fact that Applicant disagrees with other embodiments disclosed by BAURMEISTER is appreciated, but not relevant to this specific disclosure.
All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on (571)272-0579. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights