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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets adjacent base portions, intervals, and area ratios in the following manner:
Claim 1 recites:
“… base portions are in a grid pattern and arranged at … intervals between immediately adjacent … base portions of the plurality”.
Given that immediately adjacent base portions in a grid includes intersecting portions that form the grid, Examiner interprets intervals of “immediately adjacent” base portions in a grid pattern to apply to adjacent but non-intersecting base portions of the grid.
“the plurality of first base portions are within the second intervals between the immediately adjacent second base portions of the plurality of second base portions in the longitudinal and lateral directions”
Given that immediately adjacent second base portions are separated by first base portions, Examiner interprets “immediately adjacent” to mean immediately adjacent within the context of the grid patten of either the first base portion grid or the second base portion. This would include, for example, parallel first base portions interrupted by second base portions existing in between.
“the plurality of first base portions are in a grid pattern and arranged at first intervals between immediately adjacent first base portions of the plurality…the second interval is larger than the first interval”
In Instant Figs. 2-3, the first base portions 15 directly to either side of a second base portion 16 are separated by at least the width of two through holes 13 and one width h2 of portion 16. This is not the same interval as the first base portions 15 adjacent to each other on one side of a second base portion 16, which are separated by a width of through hole 13.
Examiner established that “immediately adjacent” first base portions may include immediately adjacent within the context of the grid pattern of the first base portion grid, which would span second intervals (See point B above).
Given that the plurality of first base portions are within the second intervals, Examiner interprets the grid pattern of the plurality of first base potions is not limited to conservation of first intervals across second base portions. In other words, Examiner interprets there is more than one regular interval within the first base grid pattern, and those intervals may be unique values. Examine interprets “the second interval is larger than the first interval” to apply to at least one first interval.
Note: Examiner suggests clarifying what constitutes an individual first base portion of the plurality of first base portions.
Claim 11 recites:
“when viewed in the direction of the filtration filter from the first surface toward the second surface, a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of second base portions is smaller than a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of first base portions.”
Examiner interprets this to mean the plan view of the first surface.
Examiner interprets ratio as the “sum” of the total area occupied by the plurality of first (or second) portions over the total area of the filtration filter.
Examiner interprets area occupied as including areas of through holes encompassed within the space occupied by the base portion.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 9-12 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“the plurality of first base portions are in a grid pattern and arranged at first intervals between immediately adjacent first base portions of the plurality… the second interval is larger than the first interval”.
It is unclear whether all first intervals are equal (See Claim Interpretation) and if not, which first interval is small than the second interval.
“the plurality of first base portions are within the second intervals between the immediately adjacent second base portions of the plurality of second base portions in the longitudinal and lateral directions”
It is unclear what is meant by immediately adjacent , given that first base portions are between immediately adjacent second base portions.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “immediately adjacent” in claim 1 seems to be used by the claim to mean “subsequent” while the accepted meaning is “directly next to with no intervening object” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-12 depend on Claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 11 recites “when viewed in the direction of the filtration filter from the first surface toward the second surface, a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of second base portions is smaller than a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of first base portions.”
Examiner interprets this to mean the plan view of the first surface.
It is unclear if the area occupied includes the area of open space of any through holes in the base portion.
The specification provides support for “the area occupied by the plurality of second base portions 16 is 0.001 times to 0.8 times the area occupied by the plurality of first base portions 15 in the filter portion 11, when the filter portion 11 is viewed from the Z direction.” [0065].
Examiner requests clarification on whether the “ratio” means the “sum” of the total area occupied by the plurality of first (or second) portions over the total filter area.
Claim 12 depends on Claim 11 and is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO-2018116883-A1, hereinafter Murata.
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner interprets “… base portions are in a grid pattern and arranged at … intervals between immediately adjacent … base portions of the plurality” to mean the base portions are immediately adjacent in either the longitudinal direction or in the latitudinal direction.
Murata teaches a filtration filter for filtering a liquid containing a filtration target (“cell filtration filter for filtering cells”, Abstract), the filtration filter comprising: a filter base portion having a first surface and a second surface and defining a plurality of through-holes extending from the first surface to the second surface (“a first main surface for capturing cells and a second main surface opposing the first main surface”, Abstract), wherein the filter base portion includes a plurality of first base portions (Figs. 1-2 Elements 13) and a plurality of second base portions that are thinner than the plurality of first base portions in a direction from the first surface to the second surface (at least Figs. 1-2, Elements 14), the plurality of first base portions are in a grid pattern (Fig. 1) and arranged at first intervals between immediately adjacent first base portions of the plurality of first base portions in longitudinal and lateral directions (Fig 2 Element 14), the plurality of second base portions are in a grid pattern and arranged at second intervals between immediately adjacent second base portions of the plurality of second base portions in the longitudinal and lateral directions (Fig 2 across the Element 13 and D1 between each Element 14), the second interval is larger than the first interval (“the longest diameter is a line … connecting arbitrary two points on the outer periphery of the through hole… the shortest length
is made into the space interval … which connect the outer periphery of adjacent through-holes”, p 5 ¶2), and the plurality of first base portions are within the second intervals between the immediately adjacent second base portions of the plurality of second base portions in the longitudinal and lateral directions (Figs 1-2. Elements 13 within the intervals between Elements 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Murata teaches a width of each second base portion of the plurality of second base portions is larger than a width of each first base portion of the plurality of first base portions (Fig. 2 support region 14 width > hole edge 13 width).
Regarding Claim 7, Muirata teaches the filter base portion comprises at least one of a metal and a metal oxide as a main component thereof (“a metal membrane part, which has a first main
surface for capturing cells and a second main surface”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Murata teaches the second surface is substantially flat. (Fig. 2 Element PS2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Murata.
Regarding Claim 3, An embodiment of Murata suggests the width of each second base portion approaches 1.1 times the width of each first base portion:
“the long diameter D1 of the first through hole 12 is 100 µm, and the long diameter D2 of the second through hole 15 is 20 µm. Further, the distance D3 between the adjacent first through holes 12 is 30 µm, and the distance D4 between the adjacent second through holes 15 is 5 µm.”, p 5 ¶2
Applied, Fig. 2 Element 13 is at least wider than the 100 microns but less than 130 microns.
Applied, Fig. 2 Element 14 is at least (4 x D4) + (5 x D2) [Wingdings font/0xE0] (20+ 100) = 120 microns
Murata motivation for adapting width ratios to meet design needs:
Increasing aperture ratio increases flow rate: “by increasing the aperture ratio of the cell filtration filter, the liquid passage area can be increased. Therefore, the effect of increasing the flow rate of the liquid and reducing the pressure loss can be obtained.”, p 4 ¶2.
Murata support for adjusting aperture ratios (akin to adjusting second base portion width):
“the adjustment of the aperture ratio of the cell filtration filter 10 can be adjusted by the size or the number of the long diameters D2 of the second through holes 15. Therefore, the aperture ratio in the cell filtration filter 10 can be easily set, and the degree of freedom in designing the arrangement interval and the number of the first through holes 12 is increased, and cell filtration filters having various required specifications are provided”, p 7 ¶3.
Murata is considered analogous art because Murata is in the same field of a cell filtration filter with a metallic porous film having a first film thickness portion and a second film thickness portion at regular intervals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to optimize aperture ratio of Element 14 to create the desired width ratio of Element 14 to Element 13 of Murata to fulfil required specifications for cell filtration (Murata p 7 ¶3). Doing so would also allow for optimizing liquid passage area, flow rate, and pressure loss reductions(Murata p 4 ¶2 and p 7 ¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 6, an embodiment of Murata teaches a reinforcement layer on the first base portion (“the manufacturing method demonstrated using FIG. 3 (A) to FIG. 3 (F) is an example, and another manufacturing method may be… adopted.”, p 6¶ 4; Fig 3F Element 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the known manufacturing of Murata as one of finite manufacturing options of Murata to produce the metal filtration filter with expected results of producing a cell filtration filter.
Claim(s) 10-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Murata, in view of US-2018/0154317-Al, hereinafter Ibiden.
Regarding Claim 10, While Murata is silent on quantitative height ratios of Element 14 and 13, Murata provides motivation for the height of Element 13 to be optimized such that the height ratio suppresses leakage:
“hole edge portion 13 … being raised from the surrounding support region 14. Therefore… it is possible to suppress the cell …captured in the support region 14 from moving over the hole edge 13 and into the first through hole 12. Thereby, it is possible to suppress the occurrence of "leakage" in which the cell … having a size larger than that of the first through-hole 12 is deformed by the liquid flow and passes through the first through-hole 12” (p. 6 -p7).
However, Ibiden teaches raised surface first base portions (“In a filter membrane according to an embodiment of the present invention, it is desirable that, in a plan view of the filter membrane, multiple island-shape portions that form the first surface be interspersed between the expansion parts”, [0074]) and second base portions (“expansion parts”, [0074]), wherein Ibiden suggests a thickness of each second base portion of the plurality of second base portions is 0.25 times to 0.95 times a thickness of each first base portion of the plurality of first base portions (Fig. 2 t1 and t2; “a thickness (t1) of a portion where only the opening parts are formed is desirably 1-4 µm and a thickness (t2) of a portion where only the expansion parts are formed is desirably 3-16 µm”, [0195], ranges encompassing a second base portion being 0.25 times the thickness of a first base portion, e.g. 4 microns versus 16 microns).
Ibiden is considered analogous art because Ibiden is in the same field of a filter membrane with first and second surfaces and first and second base portions of the first surface, where raised first portions allow “substances larger than the opening parts are unlikely to block the opening parts, a filtration process can be more efficiently performed, and data with good reproducibility can be obtained” [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the combination of thickness ranges of Ibiden for thicknesses of the first and second base portions of Murata because “when the thickness (t1) of a portion where only the opening parts are formed is 1-4 µm and a thickness (t2) of a portion where only the expansion parts are formed is 3-16 µm, filtration can be efficiently performed using a filter membrane having sufficient mechanical strength and excellent durability” (Ibiden [0196]) .
Regarding Claims 11-12, Examiner interprets “occupied area” to include the empty space of the through-holes encompassed within the space the first and second base portions occupy.
While Murata is silent on total area of pluralities of first and second base portions, respectively, an embodiment of Murata suggests dimensions approaching the occupied area of a second base portion smaller than the occupied area of a first base portion:
An example of relative dimensions of Murata suggesting Fig. 2 Element 14 occupies less area than Element 13 “the long diameter D1 of the first through hole 12 is 100 µm, and the long diameter D2 of the second through hole 15 is 20 µm. Further, the distance D3 between the adjacent first through holes 12 is 30 µm, and the distance D4 between the adjacent second through holes 15 is 5 µm.”, p 5 ¶2
An occupied area of Element 13 is at least larger than the area of hole 12 (31,400 microns2)
An occupied areas of Element 14 is at least less than ((4 x D4) + (5 x D2)) x D3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] (20+ 100) x 30 = 3600 microns2
Example suggests an area occupied by the plurality of second base portions smaller than an area occupied by the plurality of first base portions.
Specifically, Example suggests the second base portion is at least 0.11 times the first base portion.
Fig. 1, the plan view of Fig 2, suggests a 2:1 ratio of second base: first base portions, suggesting a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of second base portions is at least 0.22 times an area occupied by the plurality of first base portions.
However, Ibiden suggests when viewed in the direction of the filtration filter from the first surface toward the second surface, a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of second base portions is 0.001 times to 0.8 times an area occupied by the plurality of first base portions (“In the filter membrane, a ratio ((a/A)xl00) of an area (a1) where the opening parts are formed to a total area (A) of the filter membrane in a plan view is desirably 4-30%.”, [0199], meaning first base portions occupy 96-70% area, a 0.04 to 0.4 range of second/first base portion area ratios; for example 4/96 = 0.04 and 30/70 = 0.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the desired area ratios of Ibiden for the area ratios of the first and second portions of Murata because “when the ratio of the area (a1) where the opening parts are formed to the total area (A) of the filter membrane in a plan view is 4-30%, an area of the opening parts per unit area of the opening parts is sufficiently large and the mechanical strength can also be maintained, and filtration can be efficiently performed using a filter membrane excellent in durability” (Ibiden [0200]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20130122539-A1 teaches microsieve for cells and particles filtration with first and second base portions
US 2006/0252044 Al teaches first and second base portions of a metallic filter
WO-2013043122-A1 teaches filter with a metallic filtering layer for cell harvesting with first and second base portions
JP-6458900-B2 teaches cell separation filter with first and second base portions
CN 106795470 A teaches cell separation filter with first and second base portions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 ` 03/12/2026