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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–4 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al., US 2022/0100080 A1 (“Chiu”).
Regarding claim 1:
Chiu discloses that a gas filter device (Chiu’s diffuse port assembly 327a), detachably mounted onto a reticle carrier (Chiu’s work piece container system 100, which carries workpiece reticle, Chiu Figs. 1 and 3, [0065] and [0024]), the gas filter device 327a comprising:
a frame (Chiu’s main body 322a), having at least one hollow (Chiu’s ports 327b, Chiu Fig. 3, [0065]), the frame 322a detachably connected to the reticle carrier100, Chiu Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, [0024] and [0072]; and
at least one porous diffusion member (Chiu’s filter membrane 327c), having a shape matching the at least one hollow 327b of the frame 322a, the at least one porous diffusion member (327c of Chiu) being fixed loaded in the at least one hollow (327b of Chiu) of the frame (322a of Chiu) to thereby securing the at least one porous diffusion member (327c of Chiu) to the frame (with the help of cover retaining member 327e, Chiu Fig. 3, [0065]; also noted there that the limited of “being fixed loaded” describes a Product-by-Process claim; Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I); here, the recited step is given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the claimed gas filter device, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as requiring the at least one porous diffusion member to be fixedly loaded into the at least one hollow and Chiu reads on such limitation with the help of cover retaining member 327e), such that an internal accommodation space of the reticle carrier (space between Chiu’s seat member 322 and its corresponding seat cover) communicates with an outside of the reticle carrier through the at least one porous diffusion member 327c, Chiu Figs. 1 and 3, [0025] and [0064].
Regarding claim 2:
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 1, wherein the frame 322a has a plurality of hollows 327b in an arrangement of central symmetric. Chiu Fig. 3, [0065].
Regarding claim 3:
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 1, wherein the frame 322a has an outer skeleton and at least one inner skeleton connected to the outer skeleton (see annotated Fig. 3, Chiu annotated Fig. 3), the outer skeleton and the at least one inner skeleton define the at least one hollow in between (as shown in annotated Fig. 3, the hollows are located in between outer and inner skeleton, Chiu annotated Fig. 3), the outer skeleton comprises a plurality of connecting members which individually coordinates with a locking member, such that the outer skeleton is detachably connected to a cover of the reticle carrier (Chiu discloses its seat cover and seat member are configured to engage at a peripheral region, and Chiu’s Fig. 5 shows a seat member 521 with screw holes, the screws holes would read on the claimed “plurality of connecting members, which would individually connect with a screw, and the screw would read on the claimed “locking member”, Chiu Figs. 3 and 5, [0028]), and the at least one inner skeleton engages with the at least one porous diffusion member (Chiu’s inner skeleton supports the porous diffusion member 327c, Chiu annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 3, wherein an inside of the inner skeleton comprises at least one coupling member (see annotated Fig. 3 below), which restricts edges of the porous diffusion member 327c to prevent the porous diffusion member from detaching from the hollow (Chiu’s coupling member cooperate with retaining member 327e to prevent the at least one porous diffusion member from detaching from the hollow, Chiu annotated Fig. 3, [0065]).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Chiu discloses that a reticle carrier 220’, comprising a cover 222’, a base 221’, and the gas filter device 327a according to claim 1, wherein the gas filter device 327a is detachably connected to the cover 322a (which is alternative embodiment of 222’, Chiu Fig. 2B and 3, [0050] and [0063]).
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu in view of Halbmaier et al., US 2006/0266011 A1 (“Halbmaier”).
Regarding claim 7:
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one porous diffusion member 327c has an upper surface, a lower surface, and a thickness extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (Chiu’s porous diffusion member 327c is a circular pad, which would necessarily have an upper surface, a lower surface and a thickness, Chiu Fig. 3.
Chiu does not disclose that the thickness ranges between 0.1 mm and 3.0 mm.
Similar to Chiu, Halbmaier discloses a reticle carrier 100 comprising a filter 232. Halbmaier Fig. 2, [0029]. Halbmaier discloses that a thickness 290 of the filter 232 is associated with “high-surface area,” which refers to the effective surface area of the total filter media available for filtration. Halbmaier Fig. 11, [0035]. It is therefore understood that filter thickness is a result effective variable because it affects the effective surface area. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thickness of Chiu’s porous diffusion member 327c to be within the claimed range because the thickness affects the effective surface area. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed panel thickness is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claims 8–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu in view of Park et al., US 2012/0000845 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 8:
It is noted that this limitation is directed to Product-by-Process claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Therefore, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the filter member. Here, the porous diffusion member has a pore or average pore diameter range between 0.1 to 10 microns. Spec. [0046]. The examiner is interpreting that the recited process will produce a porous filter member with a pore size range between 0.1 to 10 microns.
Chiu does not disclose that the gas filter device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one porous diffusion member is formed by means of sintering a porous powder at a sintering temperature ranging between 210 °C and 240 °C.
Similar to Chiu, Park discloses an air filter material. Park Fig. 1, [0060]. Park discloses its air filter material is made by sintering carbon nanostructure metal particles. Park [0014]. Park discloses a sintering temperature between 100 to 700 0C. Park [0053]. Park discloses its filter has a pore size of 0.1 to 500 nm (equivalent to 0.5 microns). Park claim 4. Park discloses its filter material effectively remove air pollution. Park [0058]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be formed using Park’s sintering method because Park discloses its filter effectively removes air pollution. Additionally, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Regarding claim 9:
Chiu does not disclose that the gas filter device according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of each pore or an average pore diameter of the at least one porous diffusion member ranges between 0.1 µm and 10 µm.
As discussed in claim 8, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be formed using Park’s sintering method because Park discloses its filter effectively removes air pollution. Park’s filter has a pore size of 0.1 to 500 nm, Park claim 1. 500 nm is equivalent to 0.5 microns, and therefore, falls within the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu et al., US 2022/0100080 A1 (“Chiu”) in view of Kishkovich et al., US 2010/0294397 A1 (“Kishkovich”).
Regarding claim 11:
Chiu discloses that a gas filter device (Chiu’s upper diffusion inducing component 229, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0054]), detachably mounted onto a reticle carrier (Chiu’s seat cover 221, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0054]). Chiu discloses that the gas filter device 229 comprising: a porous diffusion member (as shown in Chiu’s Fig. 2A, the center portion of diffuse inducing component 229 is a mesh, which would read on the porous diffusion member, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0055]), having a panel (see annotated Fig. 2A of Chiu) and a plurality of connecting members 3 located on an outer edge of the panel (see annotated Fig. 2A of Chiu), the plurality of connecting members (as annotated in Chiu’s Fig. 2A below) respectively coordinating with a plurality of locking members (screws) such that the porous diffusion member is detachably connected to the reticle carrier (221 of Chiu) by the plurality of connecting members, Chiu Fig. 2B, [0055]. Chiu discloses an internal accommodation space (space accommodating R2 as shown in Fig. 2B) of the reticle carrier (221 of Chiu) communicates with an outside of the reticle carrier through the porous diffusion member. Chiu Fig. 2B, [0055].
Chiu also discloses that the panel and the plurality of connecting members of the porous diffusion member are integrally formed (as shown in annotated Fig. 2A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
572
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chiu does not disclose the porous diffusion member is made of a porous powder.
In the analogous art of reticle storage, Kishkovich discloses a diffuser at the inlet of each reticle receptacle, Kishkovich [0006]. Kishkovich discloses its diffuser could be could be a porous material such as metal made by sintering a powder of the metal, Kishkovich [0051]. Kishkovich discloses its diffuser cause the gas to flow more uniformly with each pod, Kishkovich [0051]. Chiu discloses its seat cover could be made of a metal, Chiu [0062]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be made of powder of porous metal by sintering for the benefits of allowing purge gas to flow more uniformly. Additionally, Kishkovich discloses it is known in the art for porous diffusion member of reticle case to be made by sintering powders.
Furthermore, the limitation of “made of a porous powder” could be interpreted as a product by process limitation, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure limited by the steps, MPEP 2113. The published Spec. discloses its porous diffusion member is formed by means of sintering a porous powder, Spec. [0016]. The limitation is therefore a product by process limitation and Chiu discloses a diffusion member that is porous, and therefore read on the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 11, wherein a diameter of each pore or an average pore diameter of the at least one porous diffusion member ranges between 0.1 µm and 10 µm because Kishkovich its diffusion member is a porous material with a pore size of 1 to 3 microns, Kishkovich [0051]. Kishkovich’s range falls within the claimed range.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu in view of Kishkovich, and in further view of Halbmaier.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 11, wherein the panel of the porous diffusion member has an upper surface, a lower surface, and a thickness extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (as shown in Chiu’s Fig. 2B, [0054]).
Modified Chiu does not explicitly disclose that the panel has a thickness range between 0.1 mm and 3.0 mm. However, as discussed in claim 7, filter (diffusion member) thickness is a result effective variable because it affects the effective surface area. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thickness of Chiu’s panel to be within the claimed range because the thickness affects the effective surface area. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed panel thickness is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu in view of Kishkovich and Park.
Regarding claim 13:
It is noted that this limitation is directed to Product-by-Process claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Therefore, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the filter member. Here, the claimed panel and the porous diffusion members is essentially porous diffusion member. And the instant disclosure discloses that the porous diffusion member has a pore or average pore diameter range between 0.1 to 10 microns. Spec. [0046]. The examiner is therefore interpreting that the recited process will produce a porous filter member with a pore size range between 0.1 to 10 microns.
Modified Chiu does not disclose that the gas filter device according to claim 11, wherein the panel and the plurality of connecting members of the porous diffusion member is formed by means of sintering the porous powder at a sintering temperature ranging between 210 °C and 240 °C.
Similar to Chiu, Park discloses an air filter material. Park Fig. 1, [0060]. Park discloses its air filter material is made by sintering carbon nanostructure metal particles. Park [0014]. Park discloses a sintering temperature between 100 to 700 0C. Park [0053]. Park discloses its filter has a pore size of 0.1 to 500 nm (equivalent to 0.5 microns). Park claim 4. Park discloses its filter material effectively remove air pollution. Park [0058]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be formed using Parking sintering method because Park discloses its filter effectively removes air pollution. Additionally, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claims 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiu in view of Park.
Regarding claim 15:
Chiu discloses that a reticle carrier (as shown in Fig. 2A, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0050]). Chiu discloses that the reticle carrier comprising a cover (Chiu’s cover 221, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0050]) and a base (Chiu’s seat member 222, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0050]), defining an accommodation space (space accommodating R2). Chiu Fig. 2A, [0050].
Chiu discloses a gas filter device (Chiu’s upper diffuse inducing component 229) detachably mounted onto the cover (229 of Chiu, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0054]). Chiu discloses that the gas filter device (229 of Chiu) comprising at least one porous diffusion member (mesh portion of Chiu’s component 229, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0054), having a plurality of connecting members (see annotated Fig. 2A of Chiu in claim 11), the at least one porous diffusion member (as part of Chiu’s component 229) detachably connected to the cover (221 of Chiu) by the plurality of connecting members (as shown in Chiu’s Fig. 2A), such that the accommodation space communicates with an outside of the reticle carrier through the at least one porous diffusion member (best shown in Chiu’s Fig. 2B). Chiu Figs. 2A and 2B, [0054]–[0055].
Chiu does not disclose that the at least one porous diffusion member formed by means of sintering a porous powder.
As discussed in claim 8, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be formed using Park’s sintering method because Park discloses its filter effectively removes air pollution.
Regarding claim 16:
Chiu discloses that a reticle carrier 100. Chiu Fig. 1, [0024]. Chiu discloses that the reticle carrier 100 comprising a cover 112 and a base 111, defining an accommodation space (as shown in Fig. 1). Chiu Fig. 1, [0035]. Chiu also discloses a frame 122, detachably mounted onto the cover 112, the frame 122 (mapped to its alternative 322) comprising an outer skeleton and an inner skeleton (see annotated Fig. 3 in claim 3), defining at least one hollow 327b, the hollow 327b for being filled with a porous diffusion member 327c formed by sintering a porous powder (product by process claim, as discussed in claim 8, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chiu’s porous diffusion member to be formed using Park’s sintering method because Park discloses its filter effectively removes air pollution),
wherein the porous diffusion member (327c of Chiu) is fixedly loaded in the at least one hollow of the frame (327b of Chiu) to secure the porous diffusion member within the at least one hollow (with the help of cover retaining member 327e, Chiu Fig. 3, [0065]; also noted there that the limited of “is fixedly loaded” describes a Product-by-Process claim; Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I); here, the recited step is given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the claimed reticle carrier, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as requiring the at least one porous diffusion member to be fixed into the at least one hollow and Chiu reads on such limitation with the help of cover retaining member 327e).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5–6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5:
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 4, wherein the inside of the inner skeleton comprises at least one support member (solid portion of the mesh holes of the inner skeleton) connected to the coupling member. Chiu annotated Fig. 3 in claims 3 and 4.
Chiu does not disclose that the support member is embedded in the porous diffusion member to prevent the porous diffusion member from detaching from the hollow. Chiu’s support member provides support from a side, and Chiu relies on retaining member 327e to prevent the porous diffusion member from detaching from hollow. it would therefore have not been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the support member to be embedded in the porous diffusion member because it makes replacing the diffusing member difficult. Additionally, none of the prior art teaches the claimed embedded configuration.
Regarding claim 6:
It is noted that the limitation of “the porous diffusion member is engaged with the least one coupling member of the inner skeleton by means of sintering” is directed to Product-by-Process claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Therefore, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the filter member. Here, the published disclosure (hereinafter “Spec.”) discloses that “[[W]]when the porous powder is filled in the hollow (313), sintered and molded, the coupling member (316) and the bridge connection structure thereof are both embedded into the porous diffusion member (32), thereby preventing the porous diffusion member (32) from detaching.” Spec. [0049] and Fig. 2H. In view of this, the Product-by-Process limitation is interpreted to look like Fig. 2H, where the coupling member 316 is embedded in the diffusion member.
Chiu discloses that the gas filter device according to claim 4, wherein the at least one coupling member and an upper surface or a lower surface of the frame appear as a discontinuous stepped structure (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 in claim 4, the coupling member is a recess on the frame structure 322a, and therefore, forming a discontinuous stepped structure). Chiu annotated Fig. 3.
However, Chiu does not disclose that the porous diffusion member is engaged with the least one coupling member of the inner skeleton by means of sintering because Chiu’s coupling member is not embedded in the porous diffusion member 327c. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the support member to be embedded in the porous diffusion member because it makes replacing the diffusing member difficult. Additionally, none of the prior art teaches the claimed embedded configuration.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
In view of the amendment to claim 11, the examiner relies on Kishkovich for the rejection of claim 11. Applicant’s argument focuses on Chiu and therefore are moot, Applicant Rem. dated Apr. 16, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 7–9. Additionally, it is pointed out that the limitation of “made of a porous powder” could be interpreted as a Product-by-Process claim, because the published Spec. mentions that the porous powders are “sintered” to form the porous diffusion member, Spec. [0016]. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Here, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the claimed apparatus, which requires the porous diffusion member to be porous. Additionally, for the purpose of compact prosecution, a set of rejection is provided to teach the limitation “made of porous powder”, please see details above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of claim 1, the applicant further limits the diffusion member to be fixedly loaded in the hollow of the frame, the examiner points out that Chiu’s diffusion member is “fixed loaded” in the at least one hollow of Chiu with the help of Chiu’s retaining member, and therefore Chiu read on the amended claim 1. Since Prax is not relied upon in the rejection, applicant’s arguments regarding Prax is moot.
Regarding applicant’s argument of claim 15, the applicant argues that the claimed “porous diffusion member” is an integral porous structure including both the panel and connecting members, all formed by sintering.” The applicant argues that limitation is supported by Spec. [0050]. Applicant Rem. dated Apr. 16, 2026, (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 12, where the Spec. [0050] states “the gas filter device is integrally formed primarily by a panel 41 and a plurality of connecting members 42.” The applicant then cites to its arguments in section II, where the applicant argues that the claimed porous diffusion member is a porous structure in which both the panel and connecting members are made of the same porous material. Applicant Rem. p. 7. The connecting members, as part of the porous diffusion member, inherently possess the same porous diffusion characteristics as the panel, Applicant Rem. p. 7. The applicant then argues that Chiu and Park are in different technical fields, where Chiu relates to a gas filter device for a reticle carrier in semiconductor industry, and the primary concern is controlling gas diffusion to protect photomasks from contamination. And Park relates to a carbon nanostructure-metal composite nanoporous film for water treatment and antibacterial filtration, manufactured by coating a composite onto a membrane support and then sintering the coated support to create a thin-film filter, Id. at p. 12. The applicant argues that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Chiu because the modification would redesign Chiu’s component 220 so that the entire component to become a unitary porous body formed by sintering, Id. at . p. 12.
In response, the examiner first points out that the instant claim 15 does not require the porous diffusion member to be an integral porous structure including both the panel and the connecting member, all formed by sintering. The applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention. Additionally, claim 15 also does not require the connecting member to be made of the same porous material, and therefore not commensurate with the scope of the invention. Additionally, regarding applicant’s argument of Park are in different field, because Park focuses on water treatment, the examiner disagrees. Park discloses its filter is for purifying water and air, Park [0058]. And therefore, it is in the same field of endeavor with Chiu, which is essentially an air filter. The examiner does not think Park would change the principle of operation of Chiu because the propose modification is to modify Chiu’s porous diffusion member, which is mapped to mesh portion of Chiu’s component 229, Chiu Fig. 2A, [0054]. Additionally, Chiu disclsoes its porous diffusion portion could be a membrane, Chiu [0065]. Therefore, there is no redesign necessary.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant argues that amended claim 16 recites the porous diffusion member loading in a hollow of the frame, which none of the cited prior art teaches. The applicant also argues that Park’s sintering method is directed to forming a thin-film nanoparticle coating on a membrane support for water treatment, rather than forming a self-supporting structural porous diffusion member that fills a hollow in a frame. Applicant Rem. p. 14.
The examiner does not agree. The limitation of porous diffusion member loading in a hollow of the frame is taught by Chiu as discussed in claim 1. Additionally, Park’s film is not just for water treatment, it also works for air filtration, Park [0058]. Additionally, claim 16 does not require a “self-supporting structural”, applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights