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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been 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.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one port for supplying and/or discharging” in lines 3-4; however, in lines 13-14 the claim recites “a port for supplying….a port for discharging." It is unclear if the second recitation of the “ports” are in addition to those disclosed in lines 3-4 or new ports? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “the reaction chambers are spatially limited” in several different lines regarding the reaction chamber. Again, it is unclear if these are the same or different limitations and thus have antecedent basis concerns.
Additionally, the last line of claim 1 recites “free from microparticles”, are these additional or the same as the microparticles recited earlier in the claim?
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “opposite that side” in line 3. Opposite what side? This is indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, please note that claim 8 does not appear to recite additional structural limitations. Claim 8 can be read “or a regenerative unit is associated with”. This language does not positively that a regenerative unit has to present or part of the device. This claim is indefinite in that it appears to fail to further limit claim 1 in that no additional structural elements need be present.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “a reactive substance or a plurality of reactive substances” it is unclear if these are additional reactive substances in addition to those already disclosed in claim 1?
Again, any claims that depend therefrom the above are also rejected.
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) 1, 3, 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN206359334U (citing to machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9 and 10, CN’334 teaches a filtration device comprising a reaction chamber #100 (see fig. 1) comprising a water inlet #101 comprising a first separation membrane for coarse particles #10 (large diameter), a second separation area #20 to remove heavy metals having a chelating resin (claim 10, ion exchanger) filter core (reactive substance; claim 9), and a second removal ultrafiltration membrane #30 (claim 6; smaller diameter) at the outlet #102 (abstract).
Please note the recitations of intended use in claim 1. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2115.
Lastly, it is also noted that "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation a device is of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Exparte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d * > 996 , 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, a claim to a device which includes limitations to the solutions run through the device and the solutions formed within the device do not, without more, make the claim patentable. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, note that #10 is on one side and #30 is on the other side of chamber #100.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, a submerged membrane is a type of filtration technology used in water treatment and are sheets. Note that both membranes are covered in water when the fluid enters the device, thus, they are submerged, i.e. used in wastewater treatment processes.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is directed to the intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2115
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206359334U, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lin (US 20150041380).
Regarding claim 4, CN’334 teaches a straight flow path. However, Lin also teaches a water filtration device wherein either a parallel orientation of the inlet port 218 with respect to the longitudinal axis of the package filter may be varied (including a right-angle oriented tilt away from the parallel orientation) to accommodate a particular spatial need [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have placed the flow direction at right angles in CN’334 as taught by Lin in order to accommodate any spatial needs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206359334U, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Muramoto (US 20070119779).
Regarding claim 8, please note that claim 8 does not appear to recite additional structural limitations. At best claim 8 recites “or a regenerative unit is associated with”. Given that CN’334 teaches the replacement of the resin, this could be seen as regenerating, i.e. replacing, associated with the device.
If CN’334 is seen as not specifically disclose a regeneration unit, Muramoto also teaches a water filtration device that utilizes an adsorbent to treat micropollutants in the fluid (para [0056]). Muramoto further teaches a need for regenerating the adsorbent used in the separation of micropollutants so that the adsorbent can be repeatedly used (para [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a regenerative reactive substances as suggested by Muramoto in CN’334 to remove impurities in order to simplify the device and regenerate it in-line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5092993, US20220097110 and WO9204970 also teach filtration devices having different size membranes to remove pollutants.
US-20120118824 There is provided a water treatment apparatus, including: first membrane filtration means in which a filtration membrane having an average pore diameter of 1 .mu.m or more is used; second membrane filtration means for treating water filtered by the first membrane filtration means, by using a microfiltration membrane or ultrafiltration membrane; and reverse osmosis membrane filtration means for treating water filtered by the second membrane filtration means (abstract).
US20180127294 teaches a water filtration device having larger to smaller diameter pore size filters [0003].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776