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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species 2 in the reply filed on 3 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the regions in the other species are analogous to those in Species 2. This is not found persuasive because while the regions in the other Species may be analogous, they are not the same, they are alternatives.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “studying particle behavior in at least one of the [regions]”. The metes and bounds of the phrase are unclear thus rendering the claim indefinite. Does studying include a scientist developing theory with pen and paper? Or is it limited to some kind of physical measurement? Are mental steps permitted?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta, N. K., & Gianchandani, Y. B. (2010, January). A high-flow Knudsen pump using a polymer membrane: Performance at and below atmospheric pressures. In 2010 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) (pp. 1095-1098). IEEE.
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta discloses a system, in at least Figure 3a, comprising: a first region (in brass base) configured to retain particles (gas molecules) and having a first characteristic dimension (mean free path) (Page 1095 – 1096); and a second region (region between and including the nanoporous polymer and the insulating top) (Figure 3a) communicatively coupled with the first region such that the particles can travel between the first region and the second region (Figure 3a) (Page 1095 – 1096), the second region having a second characteristic dimension of not larger than twice a characteristic length for the particles (transitional flow includes Knudsen numbers which have a second characteristic dimension of not larger than twice the mean free path) (Page 1095 – 1096); wherein the second region includes a barrier to the travel of the particles from or to the first region (nanoporous polymer) (Figure 3a).
Regarding Claim 2, Gupta discloses the characteristic length is selected from a particle mean free path and a particle size (particle mean free path) (Page 1095 – 1096).
Regarding Claim 3, Gupta discloses the first region and the second region are communicatively coupled such that at least one of mass or energy is transferable between the first region and the second region (mass and/or thermal energy) (Page 1095 – 1096).
Regarding Claim 4, Gupta discloses the barrier is selected from an energy barrier (thermal and/or gravitational barrier) and an asymmetric physical barrier (Page 1095 – 1096) (Figures 2, 3a).
Regarding Claim 5, Gupta discloses the energy barrier where the limitations of Claim 5 further limit the alternative. As such, Claim 5 has been taught under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 6, Gupta discloses the energy barrier includes at least one of an electric field for the particles including charged particles or a gravitational field (gravitational field as the regions are vertically one over the other) (Figures 3a, 3b).
Regarding Claim 7, Gupta discloses a third region (outlet) communicatively coupled with at least the second region (Figure 3a).
Regarding Claim 8, Gupta discloses the third region is communicatively coupled with the first region such that the particles can travel at least one of between the first region and the second region, between the second region and the third region, or between the third region and the first region (Figure 3a).
Regarding Claim 9, Gupta discloses the third region is communicatively coupled with the first region through the second region (Figure 3a).
Regarding Claim 18, Gupta discloses a method, comprising: providing an apparatus including a first region (in brass base) and a second region (region between and including the nanoporous polymer and the insulating top) (Figure 3a), the first region being configured to retain particles (gas molecules) and having a first characteristic dimension (mean free path) (Page 1095 – 1096), the second region being communicatively coupled with the first region (Figure 3a) such that the particles can travel between the first region and the second region (Page 1095 – 1096) and having a second characteristic dimension of not larger than twice a characteristic length for the particles (transitional flow includes Knudsen numbers which have a second characteristic dimension of not larger than twice the mean free path) (Page 1095 – 1096); and providing the particles in the apparatus (Page 1095 – 1096).
Regarding Claim 19, Gupta discloses studying particle behavior in at least one of the first region or the second region (Pages 1096 – 1097).
Regarding Claim 20, Gupta discloses providing a third region (outlet) communicatively coupled with the first region and the second region (Figure 3a) such that the particles can travel at least one of between the first region and the second region, between the second region and the third region, or between the third region and the first region (Figure 3a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855