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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because it has the status identifier of “New” when it should be labeled as “Previously Presented” as it was included in the prior claim set dated July 01, 2025.
Appropriate action is required.
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 1–5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodes et al., US 4,678,578 in view of Kas et al., US 2013/0092622 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nodes teaches a filter device 20, which reads on the claimed “filter.” See Nodes Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 14–25.
The filter device 20 comprises a “body,” which is the structure of the filter device 20 that extends between covers 21 and 24. See Nodes Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 14–50. The “body” has a “cavity,” which is the interior space of the “body” where fluid can flow, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The “body” has “a non-cylindrical shape defined by side walls,” at least because the covers 21, 24 are non-cylindrical and comprise side walls, as seen in Fig. 1.
The filter device 20 also comprises plurality of pleated filter elements 1, with each pleated filter element 1 comprising a sieve plate 27 on its downstream side. See Nodes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, l. 26–col. 4, l. 12. The sieve plates 27 read on the “plurality of pleat covers.” The sieve plates 27 define, in the “cavity,”:
A “first side channel,” which is the left-hand-most pleating side filtration chamber 47, seen in Fig. 1.
A “first region,” which is the area occupied by the left-hand-most pleated filter element 1, as seen in Fig. 1.
A “center channel,” which is the left-hand-most pleating side face sediment chamber 41, as seen in Fig. 1.
A “second region,” which the area occupied by the second-to-left-hand most pleated filter element 1, as seen in Fig. 1.
A “second side channel,” which is the second-to-left-hand-most pleating side filtration chamber 47, as seen in Fig. 1.
Each sieve plate 27 has openings. See Nodes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, l. 26–col. 4, l. 12. Also, the “first side channel,” is disposed between the “first region,” and a “first side wall” (the interior vertical wall of cover 24), as seen in Fig. 1. The “second side channel,” is disposed between the “second region,” and a “second side wall” (the interior vertical wall of cover 21), as seen in Fig. 1. The “center channel,” is disposed between the “first region,” and the “second region,” also seen in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1142
1825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The filter device 20 further comprises a plurality of “pleat packs” comprising a “first pleat pack” of pleated filter blanks 8, 8’, 9 positioned in the “first region,” and a “second pleat pack” of pleated filter blanks 8, 8’, 9 positioned in the “second region.” See Nodes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, ll. 50–67. Each “pleat pack” comprises a “rectangular pleat pack having a generally planar rectangular entrance interface and a generally planar rectangular exit interface,” as seen in Fig. 4 where the pleated filter blanks 8, 8’, 9 have a rectangular configuration with the upstream and downstream sides having a generally planar rectangular interface construction, with the abstract describing each filter element 1 as being rectangular.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The filter device 20 also comprises the cover 21 (the “first end cap”) bonded to the “body” at the right-hand end of the “body” (the “first end”). See Nodes Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 14–25. The cover 21 comprises an opening on the upstream end connection 22 (the “first opening”) and a “first flow passage,” which is the flow passage through cover 21, as seen in Fig. 1. The upstream opening in connection 22 is connected a downstream opening in connection 22, which reads on the “inlet port.” The flow passage through cover 21 is structured for directing a fluid from the “inlet port” to the “center channel,” as claimed, because fluid from the connection 22 flows into the cover 21 and then eventually into the “center channel,” as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The fluid is directed from the “center channel” through the “first pleat pack positioned in the first region,” as claimed as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The fluid is also directed from the “center channel” through the “second pleat pack positioned in the second region,” as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The fluid then flows through the openings in the sieve plates 27 via parallel flows to the “first channel” and the “second channel,” as claimed, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
The filter device 20 further comprises a cover 24 bonded to the “body” at the left-hand end of the “body” (the “second end”). See Nodes Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 14–25. The cover 24 has a connection 25 with an upstream opening (the “second opening”) and a “second flow passage,” which is the flow passage through cover 24, as seen in Fig. 1. The upstream opening in connection 25 is connected to a downstream opening in connection 25 (the “outlet port”), as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The flow passage through cover 24 is structured for directing the fluid from the “first side channel” and the “second side channel” to the downstream opening in connection 25, because fluid flows from the “first side channel” and the “second side channel” to the flow passage in cover 24 and out the connection 25, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
The “plurality of pleat packs” comprise pleated microporous membranes 9, which read on the “pleated membranes.” See Nodes Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 55–61.
With respect to the limitation of “the fluid is a semiconductor liquid”—note that the claimed “fluid” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed “filter,” and therefore limitations describing the composition of the “liquid” fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2115 (A claim is only limited by positively recited elements).
PNG
media_image3.png
977
824
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nodes differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to microporous filtration membranes 9 having a particle retention size of 20 nanometers or less. But Nodes teaches that the filter device 20 can be used for ultrafiltration. See Nodes col. 5, ll. 35–43. Also, Kas teaches that porous membrane liquid filters used for ultrafiltration are able to filter out particulates from liquid in the range of 2 nanometers (nm) to about 0.1 µm (100 nm). See Kas [0011]–[0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the microporous filtration membranes 9 of Nodes to have a particle size retention rating between 2 and 100 nm, because the filter device 20 can be used for ultrafiltration, with ultrafiltration being known in the art to use membranes that can remove particles size between 2 and 100 nm. The prior art range of 2 to 100 nm overlaps with the claimed range of “20 nanometers or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Nodes teaches that the “first pleat pack” comprises a pleated microporous filtration membrane 9 (the “first pleated membrane”) and the “second pleat pack” comprises a pleated microporous filtration membrane 9 (the “second pleated membrane”). See Nodes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, ll. 55–61. The pleated microporous filtration membranes 9 are made of the same material, as claimed. Id.
Regarding claim 3, Nodes teaches that at least the flat, vertical walls of the covers 21, 24 are substantially flat, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Nodes teaches that the sieve plates 27 (the “plurality of pleat covers”) form a cage defining the “center channel,” as claimed, because the sieve plates 27 form a cage-like structure that surrounds the pleated filter elements 1 with the “center channel” being in the middle of the cage-like structure, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, Nodes teaches that the “cage” comprises a fabric support layer 10 (each support layer 10 is “a structural support member”) positioned between sieve plates 27 with the fabric support layers 10 being separated by fabric support layers 11 (the support layers 11 read on the “first and second walls of the cage”). See Nodes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, l. 26–col. 4, l. 12.
Regarding claim 26, Nodes teach that the “center channel” is the only channel of the “first side channel,” the “second side channel” and the “center channel” to receive fluid from the “inlet port” because the “center channel” is upstream of the “first side channel” and the “second side channel” with fluid being directed through the pleated filter element 1 in the “first region” and the “second region,” as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. This reads on “only the center channel receives the fluid from the inlet port such that the fluid is directed from the center channel through the first pleat pack positioned in the first region and through the second pleat pack positioned in the second region.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodes et al., US 4,678,578 in view of Kas et al., US 2013/0092622 A1 and in further view of Proulx et al., US 7,247,245 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Nodes teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Nodes differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the right-hand cover 21 (the “first end cap”) being made of a potting end cap bonded to a fitting end cap, as claimed.
But Proulx teaches a filtration cartridge comprising an end cap 70 that is made of two pieces 71, 72 with inner piece 71 being attached to filter housing 73 (potting) and outer piece 72 being retained to the inner piece 71 by a snap fit (fitting). See Proulx Fig. 5, col. 8, l. 60–col. 9, l. 13. The end cap construction is beneficial because it provides excellent sealing within the housing to prevent leakage. Id. It would have been obvious for the right-hand cover 21 of Nodes to comprise the two-piece construction of Proulx to improve sealing with the housing of the filter device 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that the pleated structure in Nodes is designed as a replaceable flat filter element that is clamped between housing parts, and argues that in contrast claim 1 requires rectangular pleat packs with a generally planar rectangular entrance interface and a generally planar rectangular exit interface. See Applicant Rem. filed January 14, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 5.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis. Each “pleat pack” of Nodes (pleated filter banks 8, 8’, 9) comprises a rectangular pleat pack having a generally rectangular entrance interface (upstream side) and generally planar rectangular exit interface (downstream side), as seen in Fig. 4.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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 at 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 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776