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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-20, is/are filed on 8/18/2025 are currently pending. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are withdrawn, 1-17 is/are rejected. Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Election-Restrictions
The applicant elected group 1 corresponding to claims 1-17 in the reply filed 8/18/2025. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed.
Applicants argue there is no search or examination burden because, applicant believes all the claims are in the same overlapping class. However, this not found persuasive. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species the inventions required a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries even though the inventions are classified together) (refer MPEP 808.02). Moreover, in this case the method and apparatus have separate classification as noted in the restriction, thereby employing a search burden. This restriction is made final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claim(s) 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 17937690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 of copending Application No. 17937690 substantially correspond to claims 1 of instant application because each of claims of the instant application are broader version the patent. Instant claim 1 is anticipated by reference claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18062337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 of copending Application No. 18062337 substantially correspond to claims 1 of instant application because each of claims of the instant application are broader version the patent. Instant claim 1 is anticipated by reference claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 –
(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, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by DIEL (US 20200353414 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
591
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, DIEL teaches a fluid filtration system comprising: a workstation, the workstation including a cabinet (18 i.e. a housing); a pump (80), the pump supported by the cabinet and adapted to selectively produce a flow of fluid; a single use filter (12), the single use filter removably mounted to the workstation, the single use filter having an upstream end and a downstream end; a fluid supply conduit (56), the upstream end of the single use filter being in fluid communication with the pump via the fluid supply conduit, the fluid supply conduit including a junction (implied in fig. 2) and a fluid supply valve (66), the fluid supply valve disposed between the junction and the pump; a vent conduit (52), the vent conduit being in fluid communication with junction of the fluid supply conduit such that the upstream end of the single use filter is in fluid communication with the vent conduit via the junction and a common branch extends between the junction and the upstream end of the single use filter, the vent conduit including an outlet (60), a liquid sensor (76), and a vent valve (74), the liquid sensor disposed between the junction and the outlet, the vent valve disposed between the liquid sensor and the outlet, the liquid sensor configured to generate a liquid detection signal in response to detecting liquid in the vent conduit; a control unit (78), the control unit in electrical communication with the liquid sensor to receive the liquid detection signal therefrom, the control unit including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium bearing a filter conditioning program containing a filter priming module, the processor arranged with the computer readable medium to execute the filter conditioning program, the processor being in electrical communication with the pump, the fluid supply valve, the vent valve, and the liquid sensor to perform a priming operation on the single use filter based upon instructions from the filter priming module [0042].
Regarding claim 2, DIEL teaches wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps when executed by the processor: open the fluid supply valve (66) to open the fluid supply conduit, open the vent valve (74) to open the vent conduit, operate the pump (80) to deliver the flow of fluid to the upstream end of the single use filter such that gas in the fluid supply conduit is displaced to the vent conduit, cease operation of the pump and/or close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal (from 76) [0026].
Regarding claim 4, DIEL teaches wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of the priming operation when executed by the processor: close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet [0024-0027].
Regarding claim 5, DIEL teaches wherein the filter conditioning program includes a filter flushing module, the filter flushing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a flushing operation when executed by the processor: close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, partially open the second outlet valve to partially open the second outlet operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet to thereby produce a backpressure in the discharge conduit [0025-0028].
Regarding claim 6, DIEL teaches wherein the filter conditioning program includes a filter flushing module, the filter flushing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a flushing operation when executed by the processor: operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet, close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, sequentially open and close the second outlet valve to sequentially open and close the second outlet to thereby produce a pulsing effect in the discharge conduit [0025-0028].
Regarding claim 7, DIEL teaches further comprising: a pressurized gas supply conduit, the upstream end of the single use filter being in fluid communication with the pressurized gas supply conduit, the pressurized gas supply conduit adapted to selectively direct a flow of pressurized gas therethrough to the upstream end of the single use filter; wherein the filter conditioning program includes a filter pressurizing module, the filter pressurizing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a pressurizing operation when executed by the processor: close the fluid supply valve to occlude the fluid supply conduit, close the vent valve to occlude the vent conduit, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, close the second outlet valve to occlude the second outlet, direct the flow of pressurized gas through the pressurized gas supply conduit to the upstream end of the single use filter [0015, 0025-0028].
Regarding claim 8, DIEL teaches wherein the pressurized gas supply conduit includes an air filter (54).
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 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 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 of this title, 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 negatived 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 3-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diel (US 20200353414 A1) in view of Brugger (US 5650071 A).
Regarding claim 3, DIEL teaches further comprising: a discharge conduit (48), the discharge conduit being in fluid communication with the downstream end of the single use filter, the discharge conduit including a first outlet (44) and a second outlet (46) and a first outlet valve (40, implied). DIEL does not teach a second outlet valve (implied) respectively associated with the first outlet and the second outlet, the first outlet adapted for fluid connection to a product container and the second outlet adapted for fluid connection to a waste repository; wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of the priming operation when executed by the processor: close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, open the second outlet valve to open the second outlet. Yyy teaches a first outlet valve (venous clamp 72), second outlet valve (waste valve 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have to incorporated these valves for the purpose of priming and maintaining aseptic technique.
Regarding claim 4, DIEL teaches the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of the priming operation when executed by the processor: close the vent valve (74) in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, operate the pump (80) to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter (12) such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit (48) and out of the second outlet (46) [0024-0032].
Regarding claim 5, DIEL teaches the filter conditioning program includes a filter flushing module, the filter flushing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a flushing operation when executed by the processor: close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, partially open the second outlet valve to partially open the second outlet operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet to thereby produce a backpressure in the discharge conduit [0027].
Regarding claim 6, DIEL teaches the filter conditioning program includes a filter flushing module, the filter flushing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a flushing operation when executed by the processor: operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet, close the vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, sequentially open and close the second outlet valve to sequentially open and close the second outlet to thereby produce a pulsing effect in the discharge conduit [0027].
Regarding claim 7, DIEL teaches a pressurized gas supply conduit (60, implied), the upstream end of the single use filter being in fluid communication with the pressurized gas supply conduit, the pressurized gas supply conduit adapted to selectively direct a flow of pressurized gas therethrough to the upstream end of the single use filter; wherein the filter conditioning program includes a filter pressurizing module, the filter pressurizing module being configured to perform the following steps as part of a pressurizing operation when executed by the processor: close the fluid supply valve to occlude the fluid supply conduit, close the vent valve to occlude the vent conduit, close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet, close the second outlet valve to occlude the second outlet, direct the flow of pressurized gas through the pressurized gas supply conduit to the upstream end of the single use filter [0015-0028].
Regarding claim 8, DIEL teaches wherein the pressurized gas supply conduit includes an air filter (54) [0010].
Regarding claim 13, DIEL does not teach the claim details. However, this is well-known. EP 1450879 B1eaches wherein the fluid supply conduit includes a prefilter (48 - ultrafilter), the prefilter disposed upstream of the single use filter (50) between a pump (8) and the junction (85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporated a prefilter to remove coarse particulates before the main single use filter, extending the life of the main filter, as prefiltration is conventional in fluid systems to prevent clogging.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGER (US 5650071 A) in view of XIAO (WO 2016045577 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
663
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
629
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, BRUGGER teaches a fluid filtration system comprising: a single use filter (54), the single use filter having an upstream end and a downstream end; a common branch (52), the common branch in fluid communication with the upstream end of the single use filter, the common branch including a first junction (102) and a second junction (implied in cartridge 42); a fluid supply conduit (38), the fluid supply conduit being in fluid communication with the first junction of the common branch such that the upstream end of the single use filter is in fluid communication with the fluid supply conduit via the first junction, the fluid supply conduit including a fluid supply valve (40), the first junction disposed between the fluid supply valve and the upstream end of the single use filter; a vent conduit (94), the vent conduit being in fluid communication with the second junction of the common branch such that the upstream end of the single use filter is in fluid communication with the vent conduit via the second junction, the vent conduit including an outlet (end of 94), and a vent valve (clamp on 94), the liquid sensor disposed between the first junction and the second junction of the common branch, the vent valve disposed between the second junction and the outlet, the liquid sensor configured to generate a liquid detection signal in response to detecting liquid in the vent conduit; a discharge conduit (66), the discharge conduit being in fluid communication with the downstream end of the single use filter, the discharge conduit including a first outlet (to 36) and a second outlet (to 86) and a first outlet valve (72) and a second outlet valve (106) respectively associated with the first outlet and the second outlet, the first outlet adapted for fluid connection to a product container and the second outlet adapted for fluid connection to a waste repository.
BRUGGER does not teach a liquid sensor in vent conduit generating signal. XIAO taches a liquid sensor (WIF sensor with pins 310). Paragraph [0025-0035]: "The top end 302 further includes water in fuel (“WIF”) pins 310 that extend into the fuel filter housing 106 when the automatic drain assembly 114 is coupled to the fuel filter housing 106. The WIF pins 310 are part of a WIF sensor. The WIF pins 310 are used by a controller 502 to determine when the water level within the fuel filter housing 106 reaches a threshold level." It would have been obvious to incorporate a liquid sensor as in XIAO into the vent conduit of BRUGGER to detect liquid presence and prevent overflow or contamination during venting, as liquid level sensors are conventional in fluid systems to trigger control actions like valve closure, enhancing safety in medical filtration where air venting must avoid liquid loss.
Regarding claim 15, BRUGGER teaches a pressurized gas supply conduit (pneumatic to 222), the pressurized gas supply conduit being in fluid communication with the second junction of the common branch such that the upstream end of the single use filter is in fluid communication with the pressurized gas supply conduit via the second junction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-12, 16-17 is/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.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. 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.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights