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
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamimura (US 2020/0171434).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5
Kamimura discloses a filter system comprising a first filter unit comprising a first housing and at least one filter in the first housing (para 0201), the filtering device 62 has a filter unit 12(a) (Figure 6), and the first filter comprises a first filtration medium having a first average pore size (para 0055); the filter unit 12(a) accommodates a filter cartridge having a filter Fmax with a maximum pore size X1.
Kamimura discloses a second filter unit comprises a second housing and at least two second filters in the second housing (para 0210); in the filtering device 62, the filter unit 61 accommodates two filters, and is downstream and in fluid communication with the first filter unit. However, the filtering device is not limited thereto, and the filter unit may accommodate three or more filters (Figure 6), the at least two second filters are arranged in the second ho0using in parallel (paras 0208-209), the filter unit 61 accommodates two filters Fmin and it is preferable that at least two filters Fmin are arranged in parallel (Figure 6), and each of the second filters independently comprises a filtration medium having a second average pore size (para 0055), the filter unit 61 accommodates a filter cartridge having a filter Fmin with a minimum pore size x2; and wherein the number of the first filter in the first filter unit is smaller than the number of the second filters in the second unit (Figure 6), and the first average pore size is larger than the second average pore size (para 0055 and 0079).
Regarding claim 3
Kamimura discloses that the first filter is made of polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., PTFE) (para 0335).
Regarding claim 6
Kamimura discloses that the second filter (i.e., Fmin) is made of polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., PTFE) (para 0098).
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 4, 7-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (US 2020/0171434), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above.
Regarding claim 4
Kamimura discloses that the first filter pore size X1 is 10 to 200 nm (para 0013). As the range of the reference overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 7
Kamimura discloses that the second filter pore size X2 is 1.0 to 15 nm (para 0012). As the range of the reference overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 8-9
Kamimura discloses that a third filter (12(b)) unit may be used between the first (12(a)) and second filter units (12(c)) (Figure 9). Kamimura discloses that an ion exchange membrane such as NEOSEPTA can be used as part of the filtration system (paras 0162 and 00165). It is noted that the ion exchange membrane would necessarily have a third average pore size. Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a third filter unit positioned between the first and second filter units, wherein the third filter unit comprises an ion exchange membrane.
Regarding claim 10
NEOSEPTA is a PTFE based material.
Regarding claim 11
Kamimura discloses a storage tank (13) downstream of and in fluid communication with the second filter unit (61) (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 12
Kamimura discloses that the substance to be purified filtered through filter unit 12(b) is sent back to the manufacturing tank (11)and passes through the filter unit 12(a) and filter unit 12(b). This filtration method is called circulation filtration (para 0065). As such it would have been prima facie obvious to recirculate the solvent from the storage tank 13 into the manufacturing tank 11.
Regarding claims 13 and 19
Kamimura discloses the use of a fourth filter unit on the secondary side of the third filter unit (para 0367). It is noted that the fourth filter would necessarily have an average pore size (i.e., fourth average pore size).
Further Kamimura discloses the use of two more filters in each filter unit and to run the multiple filters in parallel, as such it would have been prima facie obvious to use two or more filters in parallel in the fourth filter.
Regarding claim 16
Kamimura discloses that the second filter has smaller pores than the first filter, and the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the filters progress that their pore size would be come smaller to continue to filter more contaminates from the solvent to be purified.
Regarding claim 18
Kamimura discloses the use of PTFE in the other filters, and it would be prima facie obvious to also have the fourth filter made from PTFE.
Regarding claim 20
Kamimura discloses that the filtration device has a manufacturing tank, a filtering device, and a filling device (i.e., packaging station) (para 0200)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art fairly teach or suggest the limitations of these claims in combination with the limitations of the base claim(s) from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734