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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending
Claims 12-20 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-11 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/31/2023, 02/16/2024, and 09/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 34-35 state “the computer readable medium” and instead should state “the non-transitory computer readable medium” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “to claim 2 wherein” and instead should include a comma to further recite “to claim 2, wherein” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the tailpiece comprises a first tailpiece, the system” and instead should state “the tailpiece section comprises a first tailpiece, the fluid filtration system” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “to perform the following steps” and instead should state “to perform following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “to claim 4 wherein” and instead should include a comma to further recite “to claim 4, wherein” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “after ceasing operation” and instead should state “after ceasing the operation” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the following steps” and instead should state “following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “after ceasing operation” and instead should state “after ceasing the operation” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 9 states “such that gas upstream” and instead should state “such that the gas upstream” for further clarity. ALSO, line 11 states “cease operation” and instead should state “cease the operation” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “to perform the following steps” and instead should state “to perform following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “to perform the following steps” and instead should state “to perform following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. FURTHERMORE, line 7 states “such that gas” and instead should state “such that the gas” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 8 states “cease operation” and instead should state “cease the operation” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 states “to perform the following steps” and instead should state “to perform following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. 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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the first liquid sensor configured to generate” on line 21 of claim 1, “the second liquid sensor configured to generate” on lines 28-29 of claim 1, “the processor being configured to perform” on lines 35-36 of claim 1, “wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform” on line 2 of claim 4, “wherein the filter priming module, when executed by the processor, is configured to prime” on lines 1-2 of claim 5, “wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform,” on lines 1-2 of claim 6, “wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform” on lines 1-2 of claim 8, “wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform” on lines 1-2 of claim 9, and “wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform” on line 7 of claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation "the second single use filter” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cessation” on line 8, and “the location” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 5-10 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the downstream end of the second single use filter,” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 7 recites the limitation “the first outlet…and the second outlet” on lines 6-7. It is unclear and confusing which ‘the first outlet’ and which ‘the second outlet’ Applicant is referring to? Claim 8 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second outlet.” on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the downstream end of the second single use filter,” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 10 recites the limitation “the first outlet…the second outlet…the first outlet…the second outlet…the second outlet.” on lines 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13-14. It is unclear and confusing which ‘the first outlet’ and which ‘the second outlet’ Applicant is referring to? ADDITIONALLY, claim 10 recites the limitation “the liquid detection signal,” on line 11. It is unclear and confusing which liquid detection signal Applicant is referring to, the first or the second?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first junction” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/937870 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broad enough and further disclosed by claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/937870.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,643,062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broad enough and further disclosed by claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,643,062.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIEL et al. (U.S. 2020/0353414 A1) (hereinafter “Diel”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Diel teaches a fluid filtration system (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 1-2 and 5-24) comprising:
a pump, the pump adapted to selectively produce a flow of fluid (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a first single use filter, the first single use filter having an upstream end and a downstream end (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a fluid supply conduit, the upstream end of the first single use filter being in fluid
communication with the pump via the fluid supply conduit, the fluid supply conduit including a first vent junction and a fluid supply valve, the fluid supply valve disposed between the first vent junction and the pump (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a serial filter conduit, the downstream end of the first single use filter being in fluid communication with the upstream end of the second single use filter via the serial filter conduit, the serial filter conduit including a second vent junction and a serial filter valve, the serial filter valve disposed between the downstream end of the first single use filter and the second vent junction (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a first vent conduit, the first vent conduit being in fluid communication with the first vent junction of the fluid supply conduit such that the upstream end of the first single use filter is in fluid communication with the first vent conduit via the first vent junction (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78), the first vent conduit including a first outlet, a first liquid sensor, and a first vent valve, the first liquid sensor disposed between the first vent junction and the first outlet, the first vent valve disposed between the first liquid sensor and the first outlet, the first liquid sensor configured to generate a first liquid detection signal in response to detecting liquid in the first vent conduit (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a second vent conduit, the second vent conduit being in fluid communication with the second vent junction of the serial filter conduit such that the upstream end of the second single use filter is in fluid communication with the second vent conduit via the second vent junction, the second vent conduit including a second outlet, a second liquid sensor, and a second vent valve (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78), the second liquid sensor disposed between the second vent junction and the second outlet, the second vent valve disposed between the second liquid sensor and the second outlet, the second liquid sensor configured to generate a second liquid detection signal in response to detecting liquid in the second vent conduit (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a control unit, the control unit in electrical communication with the first and second liquid sensors to receive the first and second liquid detection signals respectively therefrom, the control unit including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium bearing a filter conditioning program containing a filter priming module, the processor arranged with the computer readable medium to execute the filter conditioning program, the processor being configured to perform a priming operation on the first and second single use filters based upon instructions from the filter priming module (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Although Diel does not explicitly teach a workstation, the workstation including a cabinet, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single-use filtration system to include a workstation and a cabinet for optimization purposes and to allow the fluid filtration system to be mounted on the workstation and cabinet for efficiency (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 2:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the serial filter conduit includes a tailpiece section and a riser section, the tailpiece section descending from the downstream end of the first single use filter to a point below the upstream end of the second single use filter, and the riser section ascending from the tailpiece section to the upstream end of the second single use filter (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 3:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 2, wherein the first and second single use filters are a first size, and the tailpiece comprises a first tailpiece, the system (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78) further comprising:
a third single use filter and a fourth single use filter, the third and fourth single use filters being a second size, the second size being taller than the first size, the third and fourth single use filters being adapted to be removably mounted to the workstation in place of the first and second single use filters, respectively (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
a second tailpiece, the second tailpiece being shorter than the first tailpiece in an amount sufficient to accommodate the taller second size of the third single use filter (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 4:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 3, wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps when executed by the processor:
open the fluid supply valve to open the fluid supply conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
open the serial filter valve to open the serial filter conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the upstream end of the second single use filter such that gas in the serial filter conduit is displaced to the second vent conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
cease operation of the pump in response to the cessation of receiving the second liquid detection signal in response to detecting no liquid in the second vent conduit at the location of the second liquid sensor (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 5:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 4, wherein the filter priming module, when executed by the processor, is configured to prime the second single use filter after ceasing operation of the pump in response to detecting no liquid at the second liquid sensor (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 6:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 5, wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform, when executed by the processor, the following steps as part of priming the second single use filter after ceasing operation of the pump in response to detecting no liquid at the second liquid sensor:
open the fluid supply valve to open the fluid supply conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
open the serial filter valve to open the serial filter conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
open the second vent valve to open the second vent conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the upstream end of the second single use filter such that gas upstream of the upstream end of the second single use filter is displaced to the second vent conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
cease operation of the pump and/or close the second vent valve in response to receiving the second liquid detection signal (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 7:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 6, further comprising:
a discharge conduit, the discharge conduit being in fluid communication with the downstream end of the second single use filter, the discharge conduit including a first outlet and a second outlet and a first outlet valve and a second outlet valve respectively associated with the first outlet and the second outlet, the first outlet adapted for fluid connection to a product container and the second outlet adapted for fluid connection to a waste repository (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 8:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 7, wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of priming the second single use filter when executed by the processor:
close the second vent valve in response to receiving the second liquid detection signal (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the second single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the second single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 9:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 6, wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of the priming operation when executed by the processor:
open the fluid supply valve to open the fluid supply conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
open the first vent valve to open the first vent conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the upstream end of the first single use filter such that gas in the fluid supply conduit is displaced to the first vent conduit (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
cease operation of the pump and/or close the first vent valve in response to receiving the first liquid detection signal (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 10:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 9, further comprising:
a discharge conduit, the discharge conduit being in fluid communication with the downstream end of the second single use filter, the discharge conduit including a first outlet and a second outlet and a first outlet valve and a second outlet valve respectively associated with the first outlet and the second outlet, the first outlet adapted for fluid connection to a product container and the second outlet adapted for fluid connection to a waste repository (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78);
wherein the filter priming module is configured to perform the following steps as part of the priming operation when executed by the processor:
close the first outlet valve to occlude the first outlet (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
open the second outlet valve to open the second outlet (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
close the first vent valve in response to receiving the liquid detection signal (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78),
operate the pump to deliver the flow of fluid to the first single use filter such that the flow of fluid passes through the first single use filter and the discharge conduit and out of the second outlet (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Regarding Claim 11:
Diel teaches the fluid filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid supply conduit includes a pressure sensor, the pressure sensor disposed upstream of the first single use filter between the pump and the first junction (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 6-8, 10-23, 36-40, 43-53 and 74-78).
Other References Considered
WORTMEYER et al. (U.S. 2021/0008498 A1) (hereinafter “Wort”) teaches a disposable device for filtering a large medium volume.
DiLeo et al. (U.S. 2011/0247971 A1) (hereinafter “DiLeo”) teaches a filter with memory, communication and pressure sensor.
Collins et al. (U.S. 2011/0138936 A1) (hereinafter “Collins”) teaches means for testing filter integrity in a liquid purification system.
Brugger et al. (U.S. 5,650,071) (hereinafter “Brugger”) teaches a technique for priming and recirculating fluid through a dialysis machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights