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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US Pub. No. 2015/0352468).
Claim 1 and 12: A filter comprising: a housing (Fig. 7, 11) having an interior space, the housing comprising at least one opening end (Fig. 10, 82)[0061,0065]; a membrane disposed within the housing that has a length that extends along a length direction of the housing (See Fig. 4 wherein the filter layers extend from the top of the housing to the bottom of the housing), and a baffle (Fig. 7, 10, 10’, 10’’) provided at least in the interior space of the housing, wherein the baffle seals an open end of the membrane at the at least one opening end of the housing (abstract)[0033, end cap 26 seals the top of the membrane structure] wherein the baffle comprises at least two baffle partitions that extend from at least the sealed end of the membrane (Fig. 1, baffle 14 extends from sealed end 26 of the membrane), along at least a portion of the length of the membrane parallel to a center axis of the filter (Fig. 1, see to divide the interior space of the housing into at least a first portion and a second portion so that when a fluid is supplied to the filter, the fluid is directed to first flow in the first portion and then to the second portion (Fig. 7, baffle comprises at least two partitions, i.e. the inside and the outside to allow fluid flow).
The newly limitations regarding the flow of fluid are related to fluid worked upon by the claimed filter. MPEP 2115 states that the “[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). Further, MPEP 2114, II. titled “Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from prior art” states “[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).
Lin teaches the claimed structure.
Claim 2: further comprising a first end cap (Fig. 3, 26) connected to the at least one opening end of the housing, wherein the baffle is also provided in the first end cap and is at least connected to the first end cap [0028, 0031, endcaps have slots that engage with baffle ridges 18] .
Claim 3: wherein a gap is provided between the at least two baffle partitions and a bottom surface of the first end cap [0033, wherein only 1 ridge on 18 must be passed to connect the baffle 14 to the end cap; when one ridge is passed, there is a gap between the end cap and the baffle).
Claim 4: wherein the first end cap comprises a first aperture for receiving the fluid (each end cap has an opening for fluid flow, see Fig. 7), wherein the baffle comprises an opening that is in fluid communication with the first aperture (Fig. 7), wherein the inlet is configured to direct the fluid to the first portion of the interior space [0057, 0065].
Claim 5: the filter of claim 4, wherein the first end cap further comprises a second aperture (Fig. 7, see openings along the sides of baffle 10). “Acting as a vent” is functional language that does not further limit the structure of the claim.
Claim 6: wherein the baffle is configured in a way such that a flow of fluid is directed to flow along an outer surface of the membrane (Figs. 1, 3, and 5, the fluid flows into the baffle and over the outer surfaces of the filter membranes (36).
Claim 7: the filter of claim 4, further comprising a second opening end of the housing (Fig. 7, bottom of housing 11) and a second end cap provided at the second opening end [0007, 0028, bottom end cap] of the housing and comprising a third aperture for discharging the fluid filtered through the membrane (Fig. 1, 13).
Claim 8: wherein the third aperture is provided at a center of the second end cap [0034].
Claim 9: the filter of claim 2, wherein the at least two baffle partitions each comprise a first end provided near the first end cap and a second end that extends only to an end of the membrane in the housing (Figs. 3 and 7 wherein the baffle only extends to the end of the membrane arrangement to contain the filter; it terminates in the end cap which sits inside the housing).
Claim 10: the filter of claim 1, further comprising a core [0053, 0059] disposed within the housing wherein the membrane is positioned between the core and the housing.
Claim 11: the filter of claim 1, wherein the baffle is only provided in the interior space of the housing and the baffle further comprises an opening provided centrally in the baffle [0053, 0059], and the filter further comprising a cap (Fig. 7, top part of 11) connected to the at least one opening end, wherein the cap includes an inlet for receiving the fluid and an outlet fluidly connected with the opening of the baffle for removing the fluid from the filter (Fig. 7 wherein 11 has fluid connections to introduce fluid and remove fluid from the apparatus).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is first stated that while claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. This is emphasized in MPEP 2111.01, II. which states “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim, limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”.
In the arguments, Applicant argues that Lin’s “architecture bears no structural resemblance to the claimed filter, which employs a single longitudinal membrane, a membrane-sealing baffle, and longitudinal baffle partitions that create counter-directional flow zones along the membrane's outer surface.” However, this is not what is claimed. There is no claim limitation requiring a “single longitudinal membrane” or a “longitudinal baffle” associated with “counter-directional flow zones along the membrane’s outer surface”.
The claim recites:
“a membrane…that has a length”. This “length” is any length of the membrane which can include a length of individual discs or the entire stack (see Fig. 1, the stack within the baffle 14). There is no more structural requirement recited and if Applicant believes the structure is different, then it is arising from limitations yet to be recited in the claims.
“a baffle provided…wherein the baffle seals an open end of the membrane at least one opening end of the housing”. Lin does, in fact, recite that the baffle (10) comprises an end (26) which seals the membrane (abstract)[0033]. Without (26) sealed on, the top of the membrane stack is open.
Lin’s baffle is sealed both along the outside and the inner ring such that it is compressed into the housing and fluid flows along the outside of the baffle and membrane stack and through openings in the membrane (see Fig. 6). This means that there is an inside of the baffle and opposite outer surface. While the claim recites “the fluid is directed…of the outer surface of the membrane”, this is not limiting to the structure of the claim. This limitation addresses the flow of fluid through the device and the material worked upon. The prior art recites all the claimed structure, and the claim is an apparatus claim. As such, the flow of fluid in the device is not limiting to the structure of the claim.
Applicant argues that the rejection “conflates a stack of discrete, horizontally-oriented filter media discs with a single membrane extending longitudinally along the housing” however there is no claim limitation requiring a single membrane or one that extends longitudinally along the housing.
Applicant argues that Lin does not teach limitations disclosed in the specification. These arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Lin does disclose the baffle as claimed and amended, please see above.
Applicant argues that Lin’s baffle does not seal the membrane because it has openings in the side. However, any filtration structure requires fluid to flow through. Applicant’s own structure shows the baffle having openings to allow fluid to flow through and the end cap being the sealing feature (See Fig. 2A and 2B). There is also no structure claimed – or even verbatim claimed – to support longitudinal flow without disruption.
Many of Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. The Examiner maintains that Lin teaches all the claimed structural limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
