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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/10/2025 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1, 2, 5-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US2020/0343117 (Eggum et al.).
Regarding claim 1, the Eggum reference discloses a purge filter support, comprising:
an outer ring structure (as shown below) configured to be assembled into a front opening unified pod purge (it is noted that this limitation is extremely broad as unified pod purge ports very in configuration and this ring could be arranged therein, depending on sizing and configuration of the unified pod purge port); a support framework extending inward from the outer ring structure, the support framework including a plurality of supports providing an lower support surface and an upper support surface, the plurality of supports including one or more supports each increasing in thickness from a respective first thickness of the upper support surface to a respective second thickness of the lower support surface; and one or more openings extending through the support framework between the plurality of supports (figure 2 object 208 OR object 206 as shown below). The filter support being a “purge” filter support is the intended use of the claim. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further it is noted that the below structures 208 and 206 both can perform the function of an upper support surface contacting and support a filtering membrane in a purge port of a front opening unified pod without any additional modification. This limitation is also considered an intended use of the purge filter support.
[AltContent: textbox (Second thickness)][AltContent: textbox (First thickness)]
[AltContent: textbox (One or more openings)][AltContent: textbox (Outer ring structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (a plurality of supports (214) with lower and upper support surfaces)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
114
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a plurality of supports with lower and upper support surfaces)][AltContent: textbox (Second thickness)][AltContent: textbox (First thickness )]
[AltContent: textbox (One or more openings)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer ring structure)]
PNG
media_image2.png
72
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is clear that the Eggum et al. reference discloses the change in thickness of the plurality of supports. Further more even if Eggum et al. did not the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
For claim 2, the Eggum et al. reference discloses for each of the one or more supports, the thickness extends at or about parallel to the upper support surface (as shown above).
For claim 5, the Eggum et al. reference discloses each of the one or more supports has a second thickness that is not at the upper support surface and is longer than the first thickness (as shown above).
For claim 6, the Eggum et al. reference discloses the plurality of supports includes a first support with a first sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the first sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180° (as shown below). While the drawings are not to scale the angle would clearly have to be between 90° and 180° (i.e. between upright and horizontal).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sample side wall shown on another supporting rib)][AltContent: textbox (First sidewall which is mirrored with a second side wall on the other side of the upper support surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper support surface)]
PNG
media_image2.png
72
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 7, the Eggum et al. reference discloses the first support includes a second sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the second sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180°, and in a cross-section of the first support, the first sidewall and the second sidewall are disposed on opposite sides of the first support (as shown above).
For claim 11 the Eggum et al. reference discloses the support framework has a lower surface formed by the plurality of supports, the lower surface disposed opposite to the upper support surface on the plurality of supports, and an area of the lower surface is greater than an area of the upper support surface.
[AltContent: textbox (Lower surface – the underside of 208)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper support surface – the topside of 208 )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
114
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Lower surface – the underside of 206)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper support surface – the topside of 208 )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
72
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is clear that the Eggum et al. reference discloses the change in thickness of the plurality of supports and therefore there would also be a change in area. Furthermore even if Eggum et al. did not the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0343117 (Eggum et al.) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lin US 20150352468.
For claim 3, the Eggum et al. reference discloses an inner structure disposed within the outer ring structure, and ribs connecting the outer ring structure to the inner ring structure. Eggum et al. does not disclose that the inner structure is a ring.
[AltContent: textbox (Inner structure)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
114
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Lin reference discloses the inner structure is a ring (figure 5, object 62) to provide structural support while allowing for a desired fluid flow (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eggum et al. reference to include the inner structure is a ring (Lin figure 5, object 62) to provide structural support while allowing for a desired fluid flow (Lin paragraph [0051]).
For claim 4, the Lin et al. reference discloses the one or more openings include a central opening that extends through the inner ring structure (figure 5, object 62).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0343117 (Eggum et al.).
For claim 8, the Eggum et al. reference discloses the outer ring structure includes one or more sidewalls defining an inlet opening, and overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface as shown above. The Eggum et al. reference does not disclose the over overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 20%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eggum et al. reference to include the over overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 20% as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claim 9 Eggum et al. reference discloses the outer ring structure includes one or more sidewalls defining an inlet opening, and overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface as shown above. The Eggum et al. reference does not disclose the overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 10%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eggum et al. reference to include the overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 10% as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claim 10 the Eggum et al. reference discloses overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface as shown above. The reference does not disclose overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is greater than 20%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eggum et al. reference to include overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is greater than 20% as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claim 12-13 the Eggum et al. reference discloses the area of the upper support surface is less than the area of the lower surface as shown above. The reference does not disclose the area of the upper support surface is 85% or less or 45% or less of the area of the lower surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eggum et al. reference to include the area of the upper support surface is 85% or less or 45% or less of the area of the lower surface as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 4,113,627 (Leason).
For claim 1, the Leason reference discloses a filter support, comprising: an outer ring structure configured to be assembled into a front opening unified pod purge (it is noted that this limitation is extremely broad as unified pod purge ports very in configuration and this ring could be arranged therein, depending on sizing and configuration of the unified pod purge port);
a support framework extending inward from the outer ring structure (outer ring of figure 7, object 113), the support framework including a plurality of supports providing an lower support surface and an upper support surface wherein the upper support surface contacts and supports a filter membrane in a purge port of a front opening unified pod (figures 7 and 8 objects 121), the plurality of supports including one or more supports each increasing in thickness from a respective first thickness of the upper support surface to a respective second thickness of the lower support surface (see below); and one or more openings extending through the support framework between the plurality of supports (figures 7 and 8 object 120). The filter support being a “purge” filter support is the intended use of the claim. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further it is noted that the below structures 208 and 206 both can perform the function of an upper support surface contacting and support a filtering membrane in a purge port of a front opening unified pod without any additional modification. This limitation is also considered an intended use of the purge filter support.
[AltContent: textbox (First surface, rounded top)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second thickness)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
518
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is clear that the Leason reference discloses the change in thickness of the plurality of supports. Furthermore even if Leason does not the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
For claim 2, the Leason reference discloses for each of the one or more supports, the thickness extends at or about parallel to the upper support surface (as shown above).
For claim 3, the Leason reference discloses the plurality of supports includes: an inner ring structure disposed within the outer ring structure, and ribs connecting the outer ring structure to the inner ring structure (figure 7, objects 112 and 121).
For claim 4, the Leason reference discloses the one or more openings include a central opening that extends through the inner ring structure as shown below.
[AltContent: textbox (Central Opening)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
334
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, the Leason reference discloses each of the one or more supports has a second thickness that is not at the upper support surface and is longer than the first thickness (the top surface of 121 is rounded so the upper support surface will inherently have a smaller surface than the thickness of the portions of the support – second thickness- going along the support to the bottom thickness).
For claim 11, the Leason reference discloses the support framework has a lower surface formed by the plurality of supports, the lower surface disposed opposite to the upper support surface on the plurality of supports, and an area of the lower surface is greater than an area of the upper support surface (as shown above).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,113,627 (Leason).
For claims 6 and 7, the Leason reference does not explicitly disclose the plurality of supports includes a first support with a first sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the first sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180° and the first support includes a second sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the second sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180°, and in a cross-section of the first support, the first sidewall and the second sidewall are disposed on opposite sides of the first support.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leason reference to include the plurality of supports includes a first support with a first sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the first sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180° and the first support includes a second sidewall extending from the upper support surface, an interior angle between the upper support surface and the second sidewall being greater than 90° and less than 180°, and in a cross-section of the first support, the first sidewall and the second sidewall are disposed on opposite sides of the first support as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claims 8-9 the Leason reference discloses the outer ring structure includes one or more sidewalls defining an inlet opening, and overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface (as shown above). The Leason reference does not explicitly state the overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 20% or 10%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leason reference to include the overlap between the upper support surface and the inlet opening in a direction normal to the upper support surface is less than 20% or 10% as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claim 10 the Leason reference discloses an overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface (as shown above). The Leason reference does not disclose an overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is greater than 20%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leason reference to include an overlap between the support framework and the inlet opening in the direction normal to the upper support surface is greater than 20% as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For claims 12-13, the Leason reference does not disclose the area of the upper support surface is 85% or less of the area of the lower surface or the area of the upper support surface is 45% or less of the area of the lower surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leason reference to include the area of the upper support surface is 85% or less of the area of the lower surface or the area of the upper support surface is 45% or less of the area of the lower surface as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 with regard to claims 1-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to claims 14-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 14-19 has been withdrawn.
With regard to claim 1 the applicant contends that the Eggum reference does not disclose a support with a first thickness and a second thickness, the second thickness contacting and supporting a filter membrane.
As discussed in the above rejection, the filter is not a part of the filter support and therefore this limitation is the intended use of the purge filter support. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The applicant alleges that advantages with regard to the difference in thickness as recited by claims 1 and 14.
These allegations of unexpected results do not take the place of factual results and are therefore not persuasive.
The applicant contends that Leason does not disclose an outer ring structure configured to be assembled into a front opening unified purge port.
This is not persuasive. Not all purge ports are configured exactly the same in terms of sizing and structure. The recitation of “configured to be assembled into a front opening unified pod purge port” is extremely broad and the sizing and structure of the pod purge port is not at all limited by the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the claimed filter support is capable of being merely placed within an opening of a very large pod purge port and therefore be “assembled into”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731