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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 1/20/2023; 8/15/2025 and 12/16/2025 have been considered and made of record.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the following claim language is considered to be indefinite for the following reasons:
a trigger point between the empty chamber signal and the filled chamber signal is set to control the flow direction of a fluid within the expansion chamber such that the fluid fluctuates between an upper limit and a lower limit of the expansion chamber;
wherein:
(A) the trigger point is set to be 25-35% different from the empty chamber signal;
(B) the first sensor assembly is longitudinally offset from the upper limit by a distance which is 15% to 25% of the length of the expansion chamber, and the direction of the offset being away from the first end of the expansion chamber; and/or
(C) the flow direction of a fluid within the expansion chamber is changed after a time delay after the first or second sensor assembly detects a signal that crosses the trigger point.
i) It is not clear from the current claim language if this is a structural limitation or merely an intended use of the claimed structure. It is not clear from the use of the language “is set”.
ii) Additionally, it is not clear how the trigger point “is set” or “the flow direction” is controlled in the absence of a controller as a positively recited structure of the system. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 15, “the negative pressure” and “the positive pressure” lack antecedent basis. Note: Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and not claim 11. Claim 15 will be treated on its merits as though it depends from claim 11.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pralong et al. (US 2013/0319944).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Pralong et al. discloses:
A filtration system (Fig. 1) comprising:
(1) an expansion chamber (17), comprising a first end (18) and an opposing second end (16) and a length extending between the first and second ends; and
(2) a first sensor assembly (26) and a second sensor assembly (25) mounted on the outer surface of the expansion chamber )¶[0075]-[0076]) to monitor a level of fluid within the expansion chamber, wherein:
(i) the first sensor assembly (26) is located proximate the first end (18) of the expansion chamber;
(ii) the second sensor assembly (25) is located proximate the second end (16) of the expansion chamber;
(iii) each of the first and second sensor assemblies includes an emitting part and a receiving part, the receiving part detects an empty chamber signal when there is no fluid between the respective receiving part and emitting part in the expansion chamber, and the receiving part detects a filled chamber signal when there is fluid between the respective receiving part and emitting part in the expansion chamber (¶[0076]);
a trigger point between the empty chamber signal and the filled chamber signal is set to control the flow direction of a fluid within the expansion chamber such that the fluid fluctuates between an upper limit and a lower limit of the expansion chamber; wherein: (A) the trigger point is set to be 25-35% different from the empty chamber signal; (B) the first sensor assembly is longitudinally offset from the upper limit by a distance which is 15% to 25% of the length of the expansion chamber, and the direction of the offset being away from the first end of the expansion chamber; and/or (C) the flow direction of a fluid within the expansion chamber is changed after a time delay after the first or second sensor assembly detects a signal that crosses the trigger point.
Note: The “trigger point” limitation and the limitations of (A) and (C) are considered to be statements of intended use. In the absence of further positively recited structure, the device of the reference of Pralong et al. is considered to be structurally capable of being operated/controlled in the manner encompassed by the “trigger point” limitation and the limitations of (A) and (C). With respect to limitation (B), as discussed above, the prior art meets the “trigger point” limitation and the limitations of (A) and (C). Further, claim limitations (A), (B) and (C) are presented in the alternative, such that they are not required by the claim in the presence of other alternatives. Since the other alternative, limitations (A) and (C) recited in claim 1 has been rejected as discussed previously, limitation (B) is rejected in the same way as since it is not required of claim 1 when presented in the alternative.
With respect to claims 2 and 4 and 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, claims 2, 4 and 6 are drawn to further limiting limitations of Claim 1 that are presented in the alternative, such that they are not required by the claim in the presence of other alternatives. Since the other alternative recited in claim 1 has been rejected as discussed previously, Claims 2, 4 and 6 are rejected in the same way as Claim 1.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, the limitations of claims 3 and 5 are considered to be statements of intended use. In the absence of further positively recited structure, the device of the reference of Pralong et al. is considered to be structurally capable of being operated/controlled in the manner required of claims 3 and 5.
With respect to claims 7-10, the reference of Pralong et al. discloses that the level sensors can be microwave level sensors (¶[0076]) and would be structurally capable of having the trigger points intended in claims 9 and 10.
With respect claims 18 and 20, the fluid filtration system of Pralong et al. is used to filter a cell culture (Examples 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 and any claim dependent therefrom would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a fluid filtration system, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, that includes a gas flow controller and first and second level sensors that wherein the fluid flow into and out of the expansion is controlled by the gas flow controller using the recited trigger point, first time delay and second time delay. The reference of Pralong et al. (US 2013/0319944) does not teach or fairly suggest these claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB