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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
There references are:
EP 1631152 B1
DE 10 2013 006 507 B4
DE 10 2007 035 583 A1
US 2012/0 234 745 A1
US 5 556 591 A
JP H04-371 219 A
Examiner note: There is a PCT written opinion filed by the Applicant on 2/10/23 that is entirely in German. It’s advised to list this document in an IDS, including a translation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 10, 12, 14, 16, 58 and 76. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because there are no reference numbers for “filter module” (claim 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “means for generating microwaves” (claim 1), “means for detecting the reflected microwave power” (claim 1), “means for introducing microwaves” (claim 7), “means for determining the reflected microwave power” (claim 7), “means for passing air or gas” (claim 7), “means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency” (claim 8), and “means for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas” (claim 11), and “means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency” (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “high and low microwave power” in line 4. Please amend to --- high and low microwave powers ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the range” in line 5. Please amend to --- a range ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the reflected microwave power” in line 7. Please amend to --- a reflected microwave power ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a discrete frequency” in line 8. Please amend to --- the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the highest absorption” in line 8. Please amend to --- a highest absorption ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the filter” in line 10. Please amend to --- the filter module ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the enclosure” in lines 10-11. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the highest energy” in lines 12-13. Please amend to --- a highest energy ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pre-existing water” in line 13. Please amend to --- a pre-existing water ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “is dry” in line 13. Please amend to --- is dried ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the humidity” in line 1. Please amend to --- a humidity ---.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “in low microwave power zones” in line 2. Please amend to --- in the low microwave power zones ---.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the device for generating microwaves of a discrete frequency” in lines 1-2. Please amend to --- the means for generating microwaves of the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the frequency spectrum” in lines 1-2. Please amend to --- a frequency spectrum ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “discrete frequency” in line 2. Please amend to --- the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “selected from” in line 2. Please amend to --- selected from a group consisting of ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “sterile filtration, disposable filter modules” in line 3. Please amend to --- sterile filtration, and disposable filter modules ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “closed filter systems” in line 2. Please amend to --- the closed filter systems ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a chamber” in line 3. Please amend to --- the chamber ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a filter module” in line 3. Please amend to --- the filter module ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “means for generating microwaves of a discrete frequency” in line 4. Please amend to --- the means for generating microwaves of the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the reflected power” in line 8. Please amend to --- the reflected microwave power ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “air or gas” in line 8. Please amend to --- the air or gas ---.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the drying apparatus comprises” in line 8. Please amend to --- the apparatus further comprises ---.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the reflected power” in line 3. Please amend to --- the reflected microwave power ---.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “into high and low microwave power zones” in line 2. Please amend to --- into the high and low microwave power zones ---.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “into high and low microwave power zones” in line 2. Please amend to --- into the high and low microwave power zones ---.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “after insertion” in line 3. Please amend to --- after an insertion ---.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the areas” in line 3. Please amend to --- areas ---.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “low microwave power zones” in lines 3-4. Please amend to --- the low microwave power zones ---.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the apparatus comprises” in line 1. Please amend to --- the apparatus further comprises ---.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the humidity of the exhaust air” in line 3. Please amend to --- a humidity of an exhaust air ---.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a discrete frequency” in line 2. Please amend to --- the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a discrete frequency” in line 2. Please amend to --- the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “means for determining absorbed power or the reflected power at a discrete frequency” in lines 2-3. Please amend to --- the means for determining absorbed power or the reflected microwave power at the discrete frequency ---.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the microwave energy” in line 2. Please amend to --- a microwave energy ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “means for detecting the reflected microwave power” in claim 1 which has been interpreted to mean or include an equipment or a component of the microwave generator. (Paragraphs [0018-0019] of the Specification mentions a “scan pass” done by “equipment” or the microwave generator). Paragraph 0011 states, with regards to the means that detects reflected microwave power, “This may preferably include means for determining the converted energy or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” Claim 13 recites “wherein the means for generating microwaves of a discrete frequency (i.e. the microwave generator) integrally comprises means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” Emphasis added. In other words, the means for detecting/determining absorbed/reflected power appears to be per “equipment” or a component of the microwave generator. The specific structure for carrying out this function isn’t clearly disclosed.
The limitation “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber” in claim 7. Paragraph 0010 of the Specification recites “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber,” but does not explicitly or clearly point out what structure is responsible for introducing microwaves into the chamber. For example, claim 1 recites “means for generating microwaves…” which is explicitly described as per a microwave generator in claim 4. It’s not clear if this separate “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber” is also the generator or a separate structure, e.g. a waveguide.
The limitation “means for generating microwaves” in claim 1 which has been interpreted to mean or include a semiconductor microwave generator or a solid-state microwave generator. (Paragraph [0008] of the Specification)
The limitation “means for determining the reflected microwave power” in claim 7 which has been interpreted to mean or include an equipment. (Paragraph [0025] of the Specification of the instant application). Claim 13, from which claim 7 depends, also has the limitation “means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” The same interpretation applies.
The limitation “means for passing air or gas through the filter module” in claim 7.
The limitation “means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency to a frequency at which the reflected power is minimal” in claim 8.
The limitation “means for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 11, 1, and 13, the corresponding structures cannot be determined or clearly determined as detailed per the 112(f) section above, and/or the corresponding 112(b) rejections, below. For the same reasons, it is the Examiner’s position that the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure is insufficient and thus the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-15 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.
Claim limitations “means for passing air or gas (claim 7),” “means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency (claim 8),” “means for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas (claim 11),” “means for detecting the reflected microwave power (claim 1),” “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber (claim 7)”, “means for determining the reflected microwave power and the frequency at which the reflected power is lowest (claim 7),” and “means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency (claim 13)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the functions.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “means for passing air or gas”. However, Specification of the instant application does not disclose what device is used for passing the air or gas. More specifically, The Specification of the instant application recites “… . In addition, the heated gas passed through - usually dehumidified sterile compressed air - dries the areas with adhesives and seals. …”, paragraph [0012]. Therefore, the scope of the claim invention of the claim 7 is unclear as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency”. However, Specification of the instant application does not disclose what device is used for feedback determining and tracking the frequency. More specifically, The Specification of the instant application recites “In some preferred embodiments, the apparatus for drying filters further comprises means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency to a frequency at which the reflected power is minimal and at which no other damage to the filter module occurs. Preferably, the apparatus for drying closed filter systems and dialysis filter cartridges is configured to divide the chamber into high and low microwave power zones in a non-contact manner. …”, paragraph [0012]. Therefore, the scope of the claim invention of the claim 8 is unclear as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “means for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas”. However, Specification of the instant application does not disclose what device is used for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas. More specifically, The Specification of the instant application recites “In some embodiments of the method, the humidity of the gas exiting the filter module or filter system is also determined. …”, paragraph [0007]. Therefore, the scope of the claim invention of the claim 11 is unclear as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “means for detecting the reflected microwave power.” The Specification of the instant application, paragraph 0019, states (emphasis added) “According to this invention, this change in resonance is detected by the equipment for example on the basis of microwave reflection…” Moreover, paragraphs [0018-0019] of the Specification mentions a “scan pass” done by “equipment” or the microwave generator. Paragraph 0011 states, with regards to the means that detects reflected microwave power, “This may preferably include means for determining the converted energy or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” Claim 13 recites “wherein the means for generating microwaves of a discrete frequency (i.e. the microwave generator) integrally comprises means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” In other words, the means for detecting/determining absorbed/reflected power appears to be per “equipment” or a component of the microwave generator. The specific structure for carrying out this function isn’t clearly disclosed.
Per MPEP 2181, Section III, if there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, then a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) would be appropriate. In this case, “the equipment” is a structural term, per se; however, this term is not sufficient or adequate because the function of claim 1 requires detecting reflected microwave power, which is implicitly done by “the equipment.” However, the Applicant’s disclosed specification does not offer any additional detail to what specific or additional structure of “the equipment,” or the microwave generator, is linked to the actual detection of reflected microwave power, which would be required per MPEP 2181, Section III.
Claim 7 recites “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber.” It’s unclear what the corresponding structure is for carrying out this function is. Paragraph 0010 of the Specification recites “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber,” but does not explicitly or clearly point out what structure is responsible for introducing microwaves into the chamber. For example, claim 1 recites “means for generating microwaves…” which is explicitly described as per a microwave generator in claim 4. It’s not clear if this separate “means for introducing microwaves into the chamber” is also the generator or a separate structure, e.g. a waveguide.
Claim 7 recites “means for determining the reflected microwave power and the frequency at which the reflected power is lowest.” This phrase is repeated in paragraph 0010 of the Applicant’s specification, however, there is no clear indication anywhere else in the specification, outside of reciting this language verbatim, of what corresponding structure specifically determines the reflected microwave power and the frequency at which the reflected power is lowest.
Claim 13 recites “means for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a discrete frequency.” There is no clear indication anywhere in the specification of what corresponding structure specifically determines the reflected microwave power and the frequency at which the reflected power is lowest.
Therefore, for the reasons above, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grünewald et al. (WO 2021170726 A1; hereinafter Grünewald).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
346
238
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
330
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Grünewald shows a method for drying closed filter systems (fig. 3) after washing or functional testing ([0004]), comprising the steps of:
providing a chamber (2, fig. 5) with a microwave antenna (6, fig. 5) adapted to receive a filter module (8, fig. 3), wherein zones of high and low microwave power (powers) are established in the chamber (2, fig. 5) (the chamber 2 have a zone of high microwave power at item 5, fig. 5 or item 20, fig. 2, and zones of low microwave powers at item 14 and item 15, figs. 2 & 5, where item 10 and item 11 disposed which is the same as the chamber 56 of the instant application has a zone of high microwave power at item 56, fig. 5D, and zones of low microwave powers at items 52, fig. 6, where item 10 and item 11 disposed);
providing means (26 of item 3, fig. 5, [0083]) for generating microwaves of a discrete frequency in the (a) range of 2.3 to 2.6 GHz (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) in the chamber (2, fig. 5);
providing means (7, 29, fig. 5, [0085], [0091-0092]) for detecting the (a) reflected microwave power;
introducing (by item 3, fig. 5, [0055]) microwaves of a (the) discrete frequency (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) at which the (a) highest absorption of power occurs (a highest absorption of power occurs at a highest discrete frequency of 2.5 GHz);
passing air or gas (by 18, fig. 5) through the filter (the filter module) (8, fig. 3) ([0088]) so that evaporated water is removed from the enclosure (the closed filter system) (fig. 3); and
further determining and re-adjusting the frequency of the microwave ([0015-0018]) at which the (a) highest energy input to the (a) pre-existing water occurs until the filter module (8, fig. 3) is dry (dried).
Regarding claim 2, Grünewald shows wherein the (a) humidity of the gas exiting the filter module (8, fig. 3) is determined (by item 19 at item 17, figs. 5, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Grünewald shows wherein the chamber (2, fig. 5) is designed such that regions (end regions of item 8 at items 10, 11 as shown in fig. 3) of the filter module (8, fig. 3) having a bond or seal (seal by item 10, item 11 as shown in fig. 3) are located in (the) low microwave power zones (as explained above, zones of low microwave powers at item 14 and item 15, figs. 2 & 5, where item 10 and item 11 disposed).
Regarding claim 4, Grünewald shows wherein the device (the means for generating microwaves) (26 of item 3, fig. 5, [0083]) for generating microwaves of a (the) discrete frequency (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) is a semiconductor microwave generator (semiconductor assembly, [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Grünewald shows wherein the (a) frequency spectrum from 2.3 to 2.6 GHz (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) is examined to determine at which (the) discrete frequency the microwave power absorbed by the water is greatest.
Regarding claim 6, Grünewald shows wherein the closed filter system (fig. 3) is selected from (a group consisting of) hollow fiber modules (fibers, [0004]) for plasmapheresis and blood washing, candle filters for particle and sterile filtration, (and) disposable filter modules (8, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Grünewald shows using an apparatus (1, fig. 5) for drying (the) closed filter systems (fig. 3), the apparatus (1, fig. 5) comprising:
a (the) chamber (2, fig. 5) for receiving a (the) filter module (8, fig. 3);
(the) means (26 of item 3, fig. 5, [0083]) for generating microwaves of a (the) discrete frequency in the range of 2.3 to 2.6 GHz (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]);
means (3, fig. 5, [0055]) for introducing microwaves into the chamber (2, fig. 5) containing the filter module (8, fig. 3); and
means (7, 29, fig. 5, [0085], [0091-0092]) for determining the reflected microwave power and the frequency at which the reflected power (the reflected microwave power) is lowest; and means (18, fig. 5) for passing air or gas through the filter module (8, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Grünewald shows wherein the drying apparatus (1, fig. 5) comprises means for feedback determining and tracking the frequency to a frequency at which the reflected power is minimal (Grünewald recites “Furthermore, it can usually be observed that the dialysis filter 8 dries faster in the upper area (in the direction of gravity) than in the lower area. Therefore, if the same microwave power or energy were applied to the upper area throughout the entire drying process, overheating could occur. The control unit 4 therefore reduces the microwave power to adapt it to the remaining moisture in the dialysis filter 8. The control unit 4 can also monitor the amount of energy reflected in the drying room 2 and thus precisely control the drying process. In other words, the wavelength of the microwaves is adjusted to the wavelength required to dry the dialysis filter 8 by adaptively adjusting the frequency and, if necessary, the power. Thus, algorithms can also be used, or only algorithms can be used, which monitor the energy input via feedback of the reflected power and adjust the wavelength or frequency to the changing required frequency of the drying dialysis filter 8. This ensures that the maximum possible energy is always supplied for drying the dialysis filter 8. This results in a shorter drying time with a simultaneously low energy input into the overall system.”, [0067], UNDERLINE emphasis added; thus, in other words, the water inside the dialysis filter 8 should absorb all or most of the maximum possible energy so that the water is quickly vapor which results in shortening the drying time and thus the reflected energy or power is minimal; therefore, Grünewald reads on the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Grünewald shows wherein the chamber (2, fig. 5) is divided into (the) high and low microwave power zones (the chamber 2 have a zone of high microwave power at item 5, fig. 5 or item 20, fig. 2, and zones of low microwave powers at item 14 and item 15, figs. 2 & 5, where item 10 and item 11 disposed which is the same as the chamber 56 of the instant application has a zone of high microwave power at item 56, fig. 5D, and zones of low microwave powers at items 52, fig. 6, where item 10 and item 11 disposed) in a non-contact manner (as shown in fig. 2 which is the same as shown in fig. 5D of the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Grünewald shows wherein the chamber (2, fig. 5) is divided into (the) high and low microwave power zones (as explained above, the chamber 2 have a zone of high microwave power at item 5, fig. 5 or item 20, fig. 2, and zones of low microwave powers at item 14 and item 15, figs. 2 & 5, where item 10 and item 11 disposed) and is designed such that, after insertion of the filter module (8, fig. 3), the areas of bonding or sealing (areas of bonding or sealing of item 8 at item 10 and item 11, fig. 3) are in low microwave power zones (as explained above, the chamber 2 have zones of low microwave powers at item 14 and item 15, figs. 2 & 5, where item 10 and item 11 disposed).
Regarding claim 11, Grünewald shows wherein the apparatus (1, fig. 5) comprises means (19 at item 25, fig. 5) for determining the humidity of the exhaust air or exhaust gas ([0081]).
Regarding claim 12, Grünewald shows wherein the means (26 of item 3, fig. 5, [0083]) for generating microwaves of a (the) discrete frequency (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) is a semiconductor microwave generator (semiconductor technology, [0084]).
Regarding claim 13, Grünewald shows wherein the means (26 of item 3, fig. 5, [0083]) for generating microwaves of a (the) discrete frequency (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]) integrally comprises (the) means (7, 29, fig. 5, [0085], [0091-0092]) for determining absorbed power or reflected power at a (the) discrete frequency (2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz, [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Grünewald shows wherein the microwave energy absorbed in the chamber (2, fig. 5) ([0066]) is determined based on a scattering parameter (scattering frequency or parameter as shown in fig. 4 which is similar to scattering frequency or parameter as shown in fig. 7 of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grünewald as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Parker (US 2,739,916).
PNG
media_image5.png
416
292
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Grünewald discloses the limitations of the method of claim 7 above, but does not disclose wherein the filter module is sealed with synthetic resin and/or adhesive.
Parker teaches wherein the filter module (Parker, 10, fig. 4) is sealed with synthetic resin and/or adhesive (Parker, “… a phenol formaldehyde resin as an adhesive for bonding the caps …”, col. 1, lines 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the method of Grünewald with wherein the filter module is sealed with synthetic resin and/or adhesive, as taught by Parker, for effectively sealing the filter module which would result in effectively stopping a fluid flowing inside the filter module from leaking during use. Thus, the filter module operates more efficiently and thus benefits the consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 5712726460. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights