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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 55-56, 58-66, 68, 71, 74 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lescoche et. al. (US 2018/0147534).
Regarding claim 55, Lescoche teaches (Refer fig. 1, fig. 4) a monolithic component (1), comprising:
a first end face (7) and a second end face (8) opposite the first end face (7); and
wherein the first end face (7) and the second end face (8) comprises an integral fluid barrier (refer claim 5, [0081] disclosing “Each plate 7, 8 has an outside face 72, 82 in contact respectively with the fluid medium for treatment and with the retentate, these outside faces 72, 82 being sealed so as to avoid the fluid medium for treatment and the retentate penetrating into the plates. The outside faces 72, 82 of the plates 7, 8 may be sealed in any appropriate manner. For example, the outside faces 72, 82 of the plates 7, 8 may be sealed by densification up to a value equal or very close to the intrinsic density of the material or by impregnation or by depositing an additional material other than the material of the plate”); and
a porous structure (2) arranged between the first and second end faces and integrally constructed and connected to the first and second end faces (refer [0069]), wherein the porous structure is at least partially or locally permeable (refer [0080]);
wherein the monolithic component is constructed from a porous base material (refer [0080]);
wherein the porous structure permeably separates a shell side of the porous structure from a carrier side of the porous structure at least partially and/or at least locally (selective permeability is inherent feature of a porous material);
wherein a carrier fluid is providable on the carrier side (the structure of porous structure is inherently capable of providing a fluid on either side);
wherein the integral fluid barrier separates a flow of the carrier fluid from a shell flow (refer [0081]).
wherein the porous structure is configured to ensure a material transfer of the carrier fluid with the shell side (selective permeability is inherent feature of a porous material).
Regarding claim 56, the limitations “wherein the monolithic component (50) is configured as a membrane element (62) for a filter device or is configured as a filter device and is monolithically constructed with the porous structure (60) as the membrane element” is reciting a function of the monolithic component without imparting additional structure.
Regarding claim 58, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous structure is semipermeable (selective permeability is inherent feature of a porous material).
Regarding claim 59, the limitations “wherein the monolithic component (50) is configured to receive and discharge the carrier fluid on the carrier side (1) and a shell fluid on the shell side (10) such that the carrier fluid and the shell fluid are flowable through the monolithic component to provide a carrier flow and a shell flow in the monolithic component” are reciting manner of operating the apparatus and material being worked upon by the apparatus without imparting additional structure. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claim 60, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous structure comprises filter capillaries (refer fig. 1, fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 61, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the first end face (7) is plate-shaped and the porous structure (2) is integrally formed on the first end face (refer fig. 1, [0069]).
Regarding claim 62, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous structure (2) comprises a plurality of elongated membrane tubes or filter capillaries (refer fig. 4) integrally connecting the first end face (7) to the second end face (8) (refer [0069], [0085]).
Regarding claim 63, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 62 as set forth above. The capillaries have inner sides (refer fig. 1, fig. 4 disclosing open structure 5).
Regarding claim 64, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 62 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the membrane tubes have tubular configuration (refer fig. 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 65, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 62 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the membrane tubes or filter capillaries each have a first and a second orifice (refer openings 5 in end plates), respectively, through which a fluid is flowable and which are respectively integral with the first and the second end faces (refer openings 5 in end plates).
Regarding claim 66, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 65 as set forth above. Lescoche discloses that the openings (5) of the membranes tubes are provided on the end plates (7 and 8) also for passing a flow of fluid medium for treatment (Refer fig. 1, fig. 4, para [0067]-[0069]). It is evident from fig. 1 and 4 that the openings 5 are concentric and align with openings of the porous structure 2 therefore teaching merging integrally into the first and second end faces.
Regarding claim 68, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous structure further comprises at least one connection, cross-connection, or stiffener (9) monolithically formed with the porous structure.
Regarding claim 71, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous structure comprises a separation filter layer C that covers wall of channels 5, wherein the separation filter layer C have a pore diameter that is less than mean pore diameter of the porous column 2 (Refer [0086]). Therefore the pores structure has pore width distribution in areas.
Regarding claim 74, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches that the porous base material is inorganic (refer [0045]).
Regarding claim 75, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Limitations of claim 75 is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, Lescoche discloses (refer [0072]) that “The porous columns 3, the inlet and outlet plates 7 and 8, and the connection bridges 9 together form a single-piece structure. Such single-piece structures 2 that cannot be made by conventional extrusion techniques can be made preferably by additive techniques”.
Claim(s) 57, 67, 69 and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lescoche et. al. (US 2018/0147534), in view of Erno (US 2021/0270534).
Regarding claim 57, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches mounting the porous structure in a casing (refer fig. 3, [0083]). Lescoche does not teach that the monolithic component further comprise an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces.
Erno teaches a module made by additive manufacturing, the module having an enclosure comprising a plurality of tubes and inlets and outlets. Erno teaches that additive manufacturing process allows the module to be formed integrally as a single monolithic component, or as any suitable number of sub-components or modules (Refer abstract, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous structure of Lescoche to provide an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces because Erno discloses that monolithic structures provides manufacturing advantages such as ease of manufacturing, reduced cost, and greater accuracy (refer [0038]-[0039] of Erno).
Regarding claim 67, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches mounting the porous structure in a casing (refer fig. 3, [0083]). Lescoche does not teach that a first carrier fluid collection port monolithically formed with the first end face and the porous structure; and/or second carrier fluid collection port monolithically formed with the second end face and the porous structure; and/or a shell fluid port monolithically formed with the porous structure.
Erno teaches a module made by additive manufacturing, the module having an enclosure comprising a plurality of tubes and inlets and outlets. Erno teaches that additive manufacturing process allows the module to be formed integrally as a single monolithic component, or as any suitable number of sub-components or modules (Refer abstract, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous structure of Lescoche to provide fluid connection ports to be formed monolithically because Erno discloses that monolithic structures provides manufacturing advantages such as ease of manufacturing, reduced cost, and greater accuracy (refer [0038]-[0039] of Erno).
Regarding claim 69, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 68 as set forth above. Lescoche teaches mounting the porous structure in a casing (refer fig. 3, [0083]). Lescoche does not teach that the at least one connection, cross-connection, or stiffener (9) directly integrally connects the porous structure to an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces.
Erno teaches a module made by additive manufacturing, the module having an enclosure comprising a plurality of tubes and inlets and outlets. Erno teaches that additive manufacturing process allows the module to be formed integrally as a single monolithic component, or as any suitable number of sub-components or modules (Refer abstract, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous structure of Lescoche to provide an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces because Erno discloses that monolithic structures provides manufacturing advantages such as ease of manufacturing, reduced cost, and greater accuracy (refer [0038]-[0039] of Erno).
Regarding claim 77, Lescoche teaches (Refer fig. 1, fig. 4) a monolithic component (1), comprising:
a first end face (7) and a second end face (8) opposite the first end face (7); and
a porous structure (2) arranged between the first and second end faces and integrally constructed and connected to the first and second end faces (refer [0069]), wherein the porous structure is at least partially or locally permeable (refer [0080]);
wherein the porous structure permeably separates a shell side of the porous structure from a carrier side of the porous structure at least partially and/or at least locally (selective permeability is inherent feature of a porous material);
wherein a carrier fluid is providable on the carrier side (the structure of porous structure is inherently capable of providing a fluid on either side);
wherein the porous structure is configured to ensure a material transfer of the carrier fluid with the shell side (selective permeability is inherent feature of a porous material).
Lescoche teaches mounting the porous structure in a casing (refer fig. 3, [0083]). Lescoche does not teach that the monolithic component further comprise an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces.
Erno teaches a module made by additive manufacturing, the module having an enclosure comprising a plurality of tubes and inlets and outlets. Erno teaches that additive manufacturing process allows the module to be formed integrally as a single monolithic component, or as any suitable number of sub-components or modules (Refer abstract, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous structure of Lescoche to provide an enclosure formed monolithically with the porous structure and the first and second end faces, wherein the porous structure is enclosed by the enclosure together with the first and second end faces because Erno discloses that monolithic structures provides manufacturing advantages such as ease of manufacturing, reduced cost, and greater accuracy (refer [0038]-[0039] of Erno).
Claim(s) 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lescoche et. al. (US 2018/0147534), in view of Anquetil (US 2017/0246593).
Regarding claim 70, Lescoche teaches limitations of claim 55 as set forth above. Lescoche does not teach that the porous structure comprises at least one of at least one turbulator for mixing the carrier fluid and/or for mixing a shell fluid, or a length-variable flow cross-section for the carrier fluid and/or the shell fluid.
Anquetil teaches a monolithic component comprising a porous structure having turbulator (9) to generate flow variations in flow section of channel (refer abstract, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the porous structure of Lescoche to include a turbulator enabling flow variations in the channel of the porous structure to generate turbulent conditions and to cause sufficient shear and recirculation to appear to be capable of reducing, or even eliminating, deposits and pore clogging on the inside wall of the channel as taught by Anquetil.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Lescoche et al. (US 201801475834), applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because Lescoche discloses in [0081] that “Each plate 7, 8 has an outside face 72, 82 in contact respectively with the fluid medium for treatment and with the retentate, these outside faces 72, 82 being sealed so as to avoid the fluid medium for treatment and the retentate penetrating into the plates. The outside faces 72, 82 of the plates 7, 8 may be sealed in any appropriate manner. For example, the outside faces 72, 82 of the plates 7, 8 may be sealed by densification up to a value equal or very close to the intrinsic density of the material or by impregnation or by depositing an additional material other than the material of the plate” which indicates that end face of plates 7 and 8 comprises fluid barrier separating feed/retentate from filtrate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777