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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/23/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim(s) 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 are pending, Claim(s) 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 withdrawn, and Claim(s) 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 were fully considered.
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claim 22, including "filtered," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claim 22, including " the filter," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claims 28,30,31, including "an abnormal state," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claims 28,30,31, including "an normal state," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 "senror" is misspelled. 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 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.
Claim(s) 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5484536 (herein known as Yamaguchi)
With regard to claim 22, Yamaguchi sufficiently teaches a device capable of being used in the field of medical comprising (as follows, and):, especially at fig 1, abstract; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
a channel 1 capable of provide fluid flow, especially at fig 1, abstract
a filtered 7 provided in the channel, especially at fig 1, abstract, c3ln29-46
a pressure sensor 11 provided in the channel at location downstream from the filter, especially at fig 1, abstract, c3ln29-56
a memory 23 storing instructions, especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln15-30
a processor 26 capable of execute the instructions to:, especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln15-30
control fluid to flow through the channel at a "rated...flow rate" (i.e. first flow rate) and acquire, from the pressure sensor, a first pressure value at the first flow rate, especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln15-30
"Cake will collect on the filter medium 7 with the progress of filtration, causing a gradual increase in fluid pressure difference across the septum," among other things, i.e. control fluid to flow through the channel at a second flow rate and acquire, from the pressure sensor 11, a second pressure value at the second flow rate, especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-30
determine "correction coefficient" (among other things, i.e. a state of the filter according to a first difference value between the first pressure value and the second pressure value), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40
determine "correct pressure difference" (among other things, i.e. a state of the filter based on the first difference value), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40
based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal state, "display" (among other things, i.e. output a service indicator), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40; in an alternative, the backwashing is an indicator of determined abnormal state
With regard to claim 24, Yamaguchi sufficiently teaches
"backwashed when the corrected pressure difference rises to a predetermined value" (within the scope of 'based on the first difference value being greater than a first threshold, determine that the filter is in the abnormal state'), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40; the backwashing is an indicator of determined abnormal state
"backwashed when the corrected pressure difference rises to a predetermined value and the lack of backwashing discussion" (within the scope of 'based on the first difference value being less than or equal to the first threshold, determine that the filter is in a normal state'), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40; the backwashing is an indicator of determined abnormal state
Claim(s) 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6377171 (herein known as Fewel)
With regard to claim 22, Fewel sufficiently teaches a device capable of being used in the field of medical comprising (as follows, and):, especially at fig, abstract; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
a channel 12 capable of provide fluid flow, especially at col 1 ln 54-67, fig
a filtered 16 provided in the channel, especially at col 1 ln 54-67, fig
a pressure sensor 36 provided in the channel at location downstream from the filter, especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 16, fig
a computer with data (i.e. memory storing) calculate (i.e. instructions), especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 25, fig
a computer (processor) capable of execute the instructions to:, especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 25, fig
control fluid to flow through the channel at a first flow rate and acquire, from the pressure sensor, a first pressure value at the first flow rate, especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 25, fig
interpret the changes in permeability over time (among other things, i.e. control fluid to flow through the channel at a second flow rate and acquire, from the pressure sensor, a second pressure value at the second flow rate), especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 25, fig
time average permeability will be computed for several time intervals and stored with time data to determine the rate of change (among other things, i.e. determine a state of the filter according to a first difference value between the first pressure value and the second pressure value), especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 55, fig; taken with an average inherently has two different values, and rate of change inherently has difference in value
detect if the rate of change of permeability is exceeding certain limits (within scope of determine a state of the filter based on the first difference value), especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 60, fig
based on a determination that the filter is in alarm (an abnormal state), output a service indicator, especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 60, col 3 ln 5-15, fig, claims 2-4
With regard to claim 23, Fewel sufficiently teaches
wherein the filter is a coalescing filter, especially at col 3 ln 20-25
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page(s) 7 with regard to the previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection.
In response:
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claim 22, including "filtered," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claim 22, including " the filter," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claims 28,30,31, including "an abnormal state," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous portion(s) 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection specifically with regard to the phrase(s) of claims 28,30,31, including "an normal state," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
Applicant argues at page(s) 8, particularly “Applicant notes that Pages 6-10 of the Office Action include multiple instances of the Examiner reading Applicant's independent claim 22 on the referenced art, for instance Page 7, which states "determine "correct pressure difference" (among other things, i.e. a state of the filter based on the first difference value), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6lnl0-40 [of Yamaguchi]" or Page 10, which states "detect if the rate of change of permeability is exceeding certain limits (within scope of determine a state of the filter based on the first difference value), especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 60, fig [of Fewel]"."
page(s) 9, particularly “22 recites "determine a state of the filter according to a first difference value between the first pressure value and the second pressure value." Thus, the analysis should be how does the art anticipate such a limitation, not how does Applicant's independent claim 22 read into the art. Such an analysis as presented in the Office Action may lead to improper conclusions based on hindsight or selective interpretation of the prior art.
page(s) 8, particularly “Put another way, Applicant's independent claim 22 does not "determine 'correct pressure difference'," which is what Yamaguchi discloses, Applicant's independent claim
page(s) 9, particularly “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reevaluate the rejection using the correct approach: determining whether the prior art discloses each and every limitation of the claims as properly construed, and provide such a reevaluation in a Non-Final Office Action. If such an approach cannot be made, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection and asserts Applicant's claims are in a condition for allowance.
page(s) 8, particularly “Applicant contends that this is an incorrect analysis. Under 35 U.S.C §102, the proper inquiry is whether the prior art discloses each and every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, as arranged in the claim. This requires a comparison of the claims as written, interpreted in light of the specification, against the disclosure of the prior art. It does not permit reinterpreting the claims to conform to the prior art's teachings.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Contrary to the Applicant's assertion, the rejection is discussing whether the prior art is within the scope of the claim language, which is consistent with MPEP 2111 and MPEP 706 PART I
MPEP 2111 During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”
an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim.
MPEP 706 PART I The standard to be applied in all cases is the “preponderance of the evidence” test. In other words, an examiner should reject a claim if, in view of the prior art and evidence of record, it is more likely than not that the claim is unpatentable.
Applicant argues at page(s) 9, particularly “According to Pages 7 and 8 of the Office Action, Yamaguchi discloses "determine "correct pressure difference" (among other things, i.e. a state of the filter based on the first difference value), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40 [and] based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal state, "display" (among other things, i.e. output a service indicator), especially at fig 1, abstract, c6lnl0-40; in an alternative, the backwashing is an indicator of determined abnormal state.""
page(s) 9, particularly “Applicant believes the Examiner is stating that Figure 1, the Abstract, and Colum 6, lines 10 - 40 of Yamaguchi may disclose "determin[ing] a state of the filter based on the first difference value; and based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal
page(s) 10, particularly “state, output a service indicator," as recited in Applicant's independent claim 22. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
page(s) 10, particularly “Applicant points to Column 6, lines 10-38, which state:
"page(s) 10, particularly “Cake will collect on the filter medium 7 with the progress of filtration, causing a gradual increase in fluid pressure difference across the septum. This pressure difference is constantly measured by the meter 11. Also, the temperature and flow rate of the fluid are constantly monitored by the thermometer 10 and flowmeter 18.
Inputting the temperature and flow rate measurements, the correction coefficient circuit 23 will computes the correction coefficient by comparing the stored pressure difference characteristics at the measured temperature and flow rate with the stored pressure difference characteristics at the rated temperature and flow rate. The computed correction coefficient will be supplied to the correction circuit 22, which also inputs the pressure difference signal from the meter 11. The correction circuit will correct the pressure difference measurements by the correction coefficient and put out the correct pressure difference at the rated temperature and flow rate, for delivery to both control 26 and display 27. (Emphasis added)."
page(s) 10, particularly “That is, Yamaguchi discloses using a temperature and flow rate measurement to generate a correction coefficient, which is used to put out a correct pressure difference that is then shown on a display. Applicant contends that this is not the same as "determin[ing] a state of the filter based on the first difference value; and based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal state, output a service indicator," as recited in Applicant's independent claim 22.
page(s) 10, particularly “Put another way, Yamaguchi generates a correction coefficient and then displays a correct pressure difference, it does not determine a state of a filter based on a difference value, nor based on that value does it determine a state of the filter and output a service indicator, as what is disclosed in Applicant's independent claim 22.
page(s) 11, particularly “Accordingly, Applicant assets that Yamaguchi does not anticipate each and every element of Applicant's independent claim 22. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C § 102 rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Contrary to the Applicant's assertion, the rejection is discussing whether the prior art is within the scope of the claim language, which is consistent with MPEP 2111 and MPEP 706 PART I
Contrary to the Applicants assertion "it does not determine a state of a filter based on a difference value" YAMAGUCHI sufficiently discloses the determined of "the correct pressure difference" is within the scope of "a state of a filter" which was based on a difference, see especially at fig 1, abstract, c6ln10-40
Applicant argues at page(s) 11, particularly “According to Page 10 of the Office Action, Fewel discloses "based on a determination that the filter is in alarm (an abnormal state), output a service indicator, especially at col 1 ln 54- col 2 ln 60, col 3 ln 5-15, fig, claims 2-4.""
page(s) 11, particularly “Applicant believes the Examiner is stating that Colum 1, Lines 54 through Column 2, Lines 60, Column 3, Lines 5-15, Figure [undetermined], and claims 2-4 of Fewel may disclose "based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal state, output a service indicator," as recited in Applicant's independent claim 22. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
page(s) 11, particularly “Applicant points to Column 3, Lines 4-12 and claim 2 ofFewel, which respectively recite:
page(s) 11, particularly “Filter slugging can be detected. If permeability were to decrease suddenly by a significant amount, liquid slugging of the filter would be indicated This could be determined by a negative rate of change of permeability limit. Filter slugging could be a result of primary separator carryover or need for a primary separator. Filter unloading can be detected If the rate of change in permeability changes to a flat or increasing level with time, then unloading would be indicated. Filter changeout would be urgently indicated. The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein the control has an alarm activated by a condition of the permeability being above a predetermined value. (Emphasis added).
page(s) 11, particularly “That is, Fewel discloses filter slugging and unloading can be detected by "changes" and those changes would "indicate" such slugging or unloading, and perhaps
page(s) 12, particularly “an alarm could be associated to such changes. Applicant contends that this is not the same as "based on a determination that the filter is in an abnormal state, output a service indicator," as recited in Applicant's independent claim 22.
page(s) 12, particularly “Put another way, Fewel only discloses that changes may be indicated by changes in permeability and then maybe an alarm could sound based on a condition of permeability, whereas Applicant's independent claim 22 discloses determining that a filter is in an abnormal state and providing a service indicator.
page(s) 12, particularly “Accordingly, Applicant assets that Fewel does not anticipate each and every element of Applicant's independent claim 22. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C § 102 rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. It is taken that the Applicant is emphasizing in their argument "maybe" in "maybe an alarm could sound based on a condition of permeability". Contrary to the Applicant's argument FEWEL states, "an alarm activated by a condition of the permeability", especially at claims 2-4
Applicant argues at page(s) 12, particularly “Claims 23-31 depend from independent claim 22. "A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers." See 35 USC § 112(d). As such, dependent claims 23-31 are patentable for at least the reasons that independent claim 22 is patentable."
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Applicant argues at page(s) 13, particularly “In view of the amendments and remarks/arguments presented above, the Applicant believes that the application is now in condition for allowance, and respectfully requests reconsideration of the application, withdrawal of the rejections, and allowance of the claims. "
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights