O yoDETAILED 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 Status
Claims 1-32 are pending:
Claims 1-5 and 21-32 have been withdrawn.
Claims 6-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Amendments filed 06/03/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims do not overcome §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 03/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 6-7 and 8-9 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
1. The Examiner Has Not Met the Initial Burden of Establishing a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness with Articulated Reasoning Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), an obviousness determination requires "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with articulated reasoning and evidentiary support. See MPEP §2142. That burden is not met where, as here, the Examiner relies on inherency without providing a factual or technical basis demonstrating that the claimed characteristic necessarily flows from the prior art. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Regarding the claimed "first purified state" and "second purified state" limitations, the Examiner's sole basis for asserting that Sajid's device is "capable of performing the intended function" is the statement: "the enclosure can contain sufficient adsorbent to reduce the amount of target pollutant in the water by 70-90%". Sajid 132. Based on this, the Examiner concludes that "the absorbent is capable of performing of the intended function." Office Action at p. 5.
This reasoning is deficient. Sajid 132 reports 70-90% removal of polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) pollutants from contaminated drinking water. Claim 6 requires 70% reduction of an impurity starting at a concentration below 100 parts per million in a liquid that is at least 99.99 percent pure. These are entirely different operating conditions-different liquids, different impurities, different starting concentrations, and different chemical environments. The Examiner has not provided any explanation of why removal efficiency data obtained in one regime (removal of PAHs from contaminated water) would establish capability in a fundamentally different regime (trace-impurity removal from ultrapure semiconductor processing liquid).
Stated differently, the Examiner's logic assumes the very conclusion it purports to establish. The question is whether Sajid's device can achieve 70% removal of trace impurities at sub-100 PPM concentrations from a 99.99% pure organic solvent. The Examiner answers this question by citing Sajid's data showing 70-90% removal of PAH from contaminated water-but that data is not evidence of the claimed capability; it is evidence of a different capability in a different context. The Examiner has provided no reasoning to bridge this gap.
This is not a case where the prior art and the claimed invention are the same or substantially identical in structure such that a property may be presumed inherent under In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 6 affirmatively recites a system comprising a 99.99% -pure semiconductor processing liquid having sub-100 ppm impurity concentrations, whereas Sajid discloses a system comprising contaminated drinking water containing PAH pollutants. These systems differ in a fundamental structural component-the liquid being processed-and are therefore not structurally identical or even substantially similar.
In the absence of structural identity, the Examiner cannot rely on Schreiber to presume that properties or performance characteristics in Sajid necessarily apply to the claimed system. Rather, the Examiner must provide a factual or technical basis demonstrating that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from Sajid's disclosure, which has not been done. The overall systems therefore differ in their constituent components, and the Examiner cannot simply presume that performance data from one system transfers to the other without articulated reasoning.
Moreover, the Examiner's assertion regarding pore size is a non sequitur with respect to the impurity removal capability. The Office Action states: "the membrane pore size can range 0.05 - .10 micron... the prior art micron size corresponds to 50-100 nm therefore the membrane is capable of performing the intended function." Office Action at p. 5. This conflates the membrane's pore size with the impurity's size. As described in Applicant's specification at paragraphs [0008] and [0025], the porous membrane's function is to allow liquid and dissolved impurities to pass through the membrane to contact the adsorbent inside the purifier, while preventing solid adsorbent particles from escaping. The membrane does not remove impurities by size exclusion-the adsorbent does. The membrane pore size therefore has no bearing on whether the system can achieve 70% impurity removal from ultrapure liquid.
Because the Examiner has not provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" connecting Sajid's contaminated-water-treatment data to the claimed capability of removing trace impurities from ultrapure semiconductor liquids, the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case has not been met.
3. The Application's Own Experimental Data Confirms the Result Is Not Inherent in Any Membrane-Plus-Adsorbent Device
The Examiner asserts that because Sajid's device includes a membrane and adsorbent, it is inherently "capable" of achieving the claimed 70% trace-impurity reduction from ultrapure liquid. But the Application's own experimental data demonstrates otherwise.
Examples 1 and 2 of the Application (1[0084]-[0095], FIGS. 3 and 4) describe experiments in which the inventors specifically designed, constructed, and tested purifier pouches for the purpose of removing trace impurities from ultrapure solvents. Example 1 tested activated carbon in a 0.2 pm UPE membrane pouch submersed in IPA spiked with 2 PPM of model impurities (long-chain hydrocarbons, dodecene, and TMB) under static conditions for 24 hours. See Application, 1[0084]-[0089]. The purifier achieved at least 80-90% removal of the model impurities. Id. at 1[0089], FIG. 3.
The control experiment, an identical membrane pouch without adsorbent, achieved less than 50% removal of hydrocarbons and less than 5% removal of TMB and dodecene. Id. These data confirm that pore size alone does not establish the claimed 70% reduction and that removal performance depends on, at minimum, the adsorbent, liquid matrix, and impurity chemistry. The specific combination of membrane configuration, adsorbent type, and high-purity liquid environment was required and was validated experimentally.
This argument is not persuasive because the claimed “first purified state” and “second purified state” are recited as method/process limitations with an emphasis on an intended use (liquid used in a semiconductor manufacturing process); these limitations do not add sufficient patentable weight to impart additional structure to the claimed storage system; therefore the prior art only needs to be capable of performing the intended function. Specifically, the limitation “wherein upon introduction into the sealable storage container in a first purified state, the purified liquid is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains an impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million, and wherein upon removal from the sealable storage container in a second purified state, the concentration of the impurity in the purified liquid is reduced by at least 70 percent from its concentration when the purified liquid is in the first purified state” is merely describing what conditions the purified liquid and impurities are in during the first and second purified states but this limitation does not incorporate any treatment element such as the membrane or absorbent; therefore, it is presumed that the structural features (membrane or adsorbent) recited previous to the “first purified state” and “second purified state” limitations would lead to achieving the claimed process/method steps.
Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus and patentability of an apparatus claim depends on the structure of the apparatus not the manner in which it is used or the result obtained. Therefore, the prior art does not have to teach the precise claimed method/process steps, so as long as the structure taught or disclosed by the prior art is substantially the same; thus it is presumed that the functions are inherent.
Sajid teaches all of the claimed structure except for a sealable storage interior (which is well-known in the art and taught by Phelan). Sajid, alone, is capable of performing claimed process because Sajid teaches all membrane and adsorbent structure capable of performing reducing impurity concentration and therefore reasonably capable of achieving the first and second purified states.
The Examiner suggests to either (1) amend the claims to particularly point-out what the specific membrane configuration and/or adsorbent type that is patentably distinct over the prior art; or (2) provide evidence that the prior-art structure cannot physically perform that purification. The liquid matrix nor the impurity chemistry recited in the claims are material worked upon and do not add sufficient patentable weight to the apparatus claim.
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
On pgs. 7-8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
2. The Motivation to Combine Sajid and Phelan Does Not Lead to the Claimed Invention
Even setting aside the functional limitations, the Examiner's stated motivation to combine Sajid and Phelan does not arrive at the claimed storage system.
The Examiner's stated motivation for combining Phelan with Sajid is: "these containers are commonly used thus convenient for a wide range of applicants particularly for treatment of water (Phelan, see 36) which is desirable in Sajid; and the sealable nature reduces further contamination." Office Action at p. 8.
This motivation, at best, yields Sajid's adsorbent pouch placed inside a sealed water bottle for portable drinking water treatment-which is all that the combination of these two drinking- water-treatment references would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed invention, by contrast, is a storage system for maintaining and improving the purity of an already-ultrapure semiconductor processing fluid during sealed storage and transport. See Applicant's specification, 1[0006]-[0007], [0067]-[0069].
Neither Sajid nor Phelan provides any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to:
" Use the system with a liquid that is already 99.99% pure rather than with contaminated
water;
" Apply the system to semiconductor manufacturing process liquids such as isopropyl alcohol, PGMEA, or other organic solvents;
" Design the system for the purpose of further purifying an already-ultrapure liquid during storage and transport; or
" Expect or optimize for a 70% reduction in trace-level impurities (at sub-100 PPM concentrations) during passive storage.
The combination of Sajid and Phelan solves the problem of removing pollutants from drinking water. The claimed invention solves the entirely different problem of maintaining and improving the purity of semiconductor processing chemicals during commercial storage and transport. See Applicant's specification, 1[0067]-[0069] (describing purification occurring during transport by truck, train, airplane, or ship, where movement of the sealed container causes incidental circulation of the liquid through the purifier without any powered mechanical propulsion). There is no nexus between the water-treatment problem addressed by Sajid and Phelan and the ultrapure-chemical-storage problem addressed by the claimed invention. The Examiner has not identified any articulated reasoning grounded in the prior art that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sajid and Phelan to address the distinct problem of maintaining ultrapure semiconductor processing liquids. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
This argument is not persuasive because there is motivation to combine. Sajid teaches everything, including a storage interior, except for a sealable storage interior. Therefore, Phelan is only relied upon to teach the claimed “sealable storage interior”. It is obvious to modify the storage interior of Sajid by incorporating a sealable means as disclosed by Phelan because these types of containers are commonly used thus convenient for a wide range of applicants particularly for treatment of water (Phelan, see ¶36) which is desirable in Sajid; and the sealable nature reduces further contamination.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
On pgs. 9-10 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
4. Sajid and Phelan Are Not Analogous Art to the Claimed Invention
Under In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004), a reference must qualify as analogous art to be applied in an obviousness rejection. A reference is analogous if it is either (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, even if it is not within the same field of endeavor. The Examiner states that Sajid and Phelan are in "a related field of endeavor" but does not explain why.
The Applicant's field of endeavor is the storage and transport of ultrapure semiconductor processing chemicals. See Applicant's specification, 1[[0001]-[0005] (describing the field as "liquids of high purity for manufacturing or processing techniques, including for... semiconductor and microelectronic device manufacturing"); 1[0067]-[0069] (describing systems for containing and transporting liquid in sealed containers, where the liquid is further purified during transport). The Application is assigned to Entegris, Inc., a company in the semiconductor materials handling industry.
Sajid is directed to environmental remediation of drinking water contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Phelan is directed to point-of-use treatment of potable water using a disposable device inserted into a water bottle. Neither reference has any connection to semiconductor manufacturing, ultrapure chemical handling, chemical storage during transport, or the maintenance of purity in already-pure liquids.
With respect to the "particular problem" prong, the problem faced by the inventor was not "how to remove pollutants from contaminated water" but rather "how to maintain and further improve the purity of an already-ultrapure liquid during passive storage and transport." See Applicant's specification, 1[0069] ("a previously-purified liquid undergoes an additional purification step during transport or handling of the liquid in a sealed container, by contact of the liquid with the purifier device in the container"). Neither Sajid nor Phelan is reasonably pertinent to this problem. A person of ordinary skill working in the semiconductor chemical storage field, faced with the problem of maintaining ultrapure chemical quality during transport, would not reasonably look to drinking water purification references for guidance.
Accordingly, Sajid and Phelan do not qualify as analogous prior art, and the rejection should be withdrawn on this additional basis.
This argument is not persuasive because Sajid, Phelan and the instant invention are all directed to devices for purifying a liquid; therefore the prior art is analogous to the instant invention (see ¶1 of the instant Specification, see ¶1 of Sajid and see ¶2 of Phelan). Additionally, the field of search for the instant invention falls under the scope of USPC class 210 (liquid purification and separation) as well as B01D (separation) and C02F (treatment of water, waste water, sewage, or sludge) CPC classification symbols, the prior art references were found under the same USPC class and CPC classes. Furthermore, arguments with respect to solving the problem of producing “liquids of high purity for manufacturing or processing techniques, including for... semiconductor and microelectronic device manufacturing”, are not persuasive because the prior art does not have to explicitly disclose producing “liquids of high purity for manufacturing or processing techniques, including for... semiconductor and microelectronic device manufacturing” in order to be solving the same problem. In fact the prior art is solving the same problem by treating a liquid using a structure substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that Sajid and Phelan is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 6-7, 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872).
Regarding claim 6, Sajid teaches a storage system for containing a liquid (see ABS and Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a …container (beaker shown in Fig. 2) comprising an interior,
a fixed volume of a purified liquid disposed in the interior (liquid comprising PAHs, see Fig. 2),
wherein the purified liquid is a liquid used in a semiconductor manufacturing process (this limitation is recited as an intended use, see MPEP § 2144.07) and
a purifier submersed in the fixed volume of purified liquid (cloth fiber was knotted to the bag so that the bag can be easily manually immersed, see ¶44), the purifier comprising: a purifier body comprising a porous membrane (fiber knotted porous membrane membrane) having pores of sub- micron average pore size (average pore size ranging from 0.08-0.12 um, see claim 1) defining a sealed interior and adsorbent (carbon-based adsorbents, see ¶9) at disposed within the interior (the porous membrane containing at least one adsorbent, see claim 1),
wherein upon introduction into the container in a first purified state, the purified liquid is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains an impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million (the membrane pore size can range 0.05-.10 micron, see ¶22, the prior art micron size corresponds to 50-100 nm therefore the membrane is capable of performing the intended function), and
wherein upon removal from the container in a second purified state, the concentration of the impurity in the purified liquid is reduced by at least 70 percent from its concentration when the purified liquid is in the first purified state (the enclosure can contain sufficient adsorbent to reduce the amount of targe pollutant in the water by 70-90%, see ¶32 therefore the absorbent is capable of performing of the intended function).
Sub-micron range per the instant specification is defined as less than 1 micron.
Sajid does not teach that the interior is a sealable storage interior.
In a related field of endeavor, Phelan teaches a treatment device and method (see ABS) comprising a sealable storage container (disposable water bottle or reusable water bottle) for housing treatment packs (see ¶36).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the container of Sajid to be a sealed container (i.e. water bottle) as disclosed by Phelan because these containers are commonly used thus convenient for a wide range of applicants particularly for treatment of water (Phelan, see ¶36) which is desirable in Sajid; and the sealable nature reduces further contamination.
Regarding claim 7, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6, wherein the membrane is a microporous membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.05 to 1 micron (Sajid, average pore size ranging from 0.08-0.12 um, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6, wherein the adsorbent is selected from: carbon-based adsorbent (Sajid, carbon-based adsorbents, see ¶48)…
Regarding claims 14-20, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
With respect to the limitations, “wherein the container contains liquid that is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million (see claim 14); wherein the liquid is useful as a semiconductor processing fluid (see claim 15); wherein the liquid is a polar organic solvent or a non-polar organic solvent (see claim 16); wherein the liquid is isopropyl alcohol or ammonium (see claim 17); wherein the liquid is selected from: an alkane (methane, butane, hexane, and other C3 through C10 alkanes), n-butyl acetate (nBA), isopropyl alcohol (IPA), 2-ethoxyethyl acetate (2EEA), an amine (e.g., ammonium), a xylene,cyclohexanone, ethyl lactate, methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), isoamyl acetate, undecane, propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME), and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA) (see claim 18); wherein the impurity is an alkane (see claim 19); wherein the liquid is a polar organic solvent and the impurity is a hydrocarbon, a metal oxide, or a metal ion (see claim 20)”, Sajid is capable of operating with the claimed liquid. The material worked upon does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. Note also MPEP 2115.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Luo (USPN 6,022,477) .
Regarding claim 8, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the membrane is an ultrafiltration membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.001 microns to 0.05 microns.
In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches a method and apparatus for isolation purification of biomolecules (see ABS) wherein the membrane is an ultrafiltration membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.001 microns to 0.05 microns (a membrane that is an ultrafiltration membrane which inherently has a pore size range between 0.01-0.1um by evidence of Hyflux membranes, therefore overlaps with the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01-0.1 micron overlaps the claimed range of 0.05-1 micron. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the membrane of Sajid to be ultrafiltration membrane as disclosed by Luo because the UF membrane holds larger molecules back and allows smaller molecules to go through (Luo, see C10/L50-60) thereby increasing filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the membrane comprises polymer selected from: a polyamide, a polyimide, a polyamide-polyimide, a polysulfone, a fluoropolymer, a polyolefin, and a nylon.
In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches a method and apparatus for isolation purification of biomolecules (see ABS) wherein the membrane comprises a polysulfone (Luo, polysulfone hollow fiber ultrafiltration cartridge, see C11/L25-35).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the membrane of Sajid to be polysulfone membrane as disclosed by Luo because it is desirable to select a membrane based on its molecular weight and the pore size compared with the size of the targeted products (Luo, see C11/L30-40).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Guo (USPN 9,073,041).
Regarding claim 11, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein there is from 0.5 g to 5 grams adsorbent per 50 milliliter of solvent in the container.
In a related field of endeavor, Guo teaches a precipitated silica sorbents (see ABS) wherein there is from 0.5 g to 5 grams adsorbent per 50 milliliter of solvent in the container (the claimed concentration range is 0.01-0.1 grams/ milliliter) (0.30 grams of powered silica is added to 30 millimeters of pH adjusted CTAB solution, see C6/L64-C7/L5; the concentration of Guo is 0.01 g/mL which a data point in range).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adsorbent of Sajid to 0.01 g/ml of absorbent per solvent as disclosed by Guo because the microporosity of the adsorbent is maximized for the design of optimal sorbent materials (Guo, see C16/L5-11).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Fletcher (USPN 2,987,216).
Regarding claim 12, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the container includes a removable liner.
In a related field of endeavor, Fletcher teaches a disposable liner for a container (see ABS) comprising a removable liner (removable liner, see C2/L65-72).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Sajid by incorporating a removable liner as disclosed by Fletcher because it is the simple addition of known removable liner to a known container device obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of creating a protective barrier and easy removable of contents within the container with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Tanny (USPN 6,527,146).
Regarding claim 13, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the container has an interior volume in a range from 1 to 200 liters.
In a related field of endeavor, Tanny teaches a water dispensing apparatus with filter integrity testing system (see ABS) comprising container has an interior volume in a range from 1 to 200 liters (the container may have a capacity from 0.5-5 liters, see C5/L33-38).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-5 liters partially overlaps the claimed range of 1-200 liters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Sajid by adjusting the size to be in the range of 0.5-5 liters as disclosed by Tanny because doing so is a mere change in shape and/or dimension. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm 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, 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights