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 § 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.
Claims 11 and 12 are 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.
Claim 11 recites the details of the stator, but appears to be only for the purpose of explaining its function without being included in the claimed structure. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant intended to have the stator, bearing and the housing included in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the stator is assumed as not included in claim 11.
The following elements are contradictory, confusing and has antecedents issues:
“the filter unit configured to be driven by a stator of a drive device, the stator being a bearing and drive stator …”
AND
“the magnetically effective core of the filter unit configured to be driven by a electromagnetic rotary drive of a stator…”
The underlined terms contradict each other. Also, the “rotary drive of a stator” is confusing because the stator is, by definition, stationary; a “rotary drive” indicates a rotating part in the stator. These two elements otherwise appear to be duplicative, but the antecedents appear to show as if they are separate parts.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, because the rejection is about clarity of the subject claim element – whether it is included or excluded; not whether it is defined structurally or functionally. Applicant may have misunderstood the issue and may be arguing about the magnetic drive in the filter that is functionally recited, which the examiner had considered, and which is present in Fischel.
Examiner suggests deleting the newly added element on 2/4/26 and amending claim 11 to include “the stationary filter housing further having a stator of a drive device as a bearing surrounding the filter housing”
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) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Fischel et al (US 4,755,300.)
Fischel teaches a rotary filter having one inlet and two outlets as claimed, and with a magnetic core 28 in the form of a ceramic disc, i.e., “disc-shaped” as claimed. The core rotates using an external magnetic drive. The entire filter can levitate along the vertical axis along pins 22 and 32 by magnetic force from an external magnetic drive or stator. The rest of the claim describes only a capability of the filter device to be inserted into a magnetic drive housing, which the device is capable of, that is the entire filer can be inserted into a housing with an external stator, even if Fischel does not explicitly teach that.
PNG
media_image1.png
854
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As pointed out in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the stator or drive device is not positively recited in the claim.
The device being for a single use is not a patentable limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to the argument, the rotary filter of Fischel is driven by an external drive stator without having physical contact. Fischel has magnetic core 28 in the filter that is capable of being rotated by a drive mechanism like a stator of a drive device, the same as in claim 11. Applicant’s argument of “functional limitation” of the stator or the drive does not recite them as included in the claim. Note that Fischel does have an external drive. Therefore, if it is positively included in the claim, claim 11 it becomes allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 13-15 are allowed.
Claim 1 is independent; all other claims depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a rotary filter driven magnetically with a magnetic rotor and a stator. The filter is cross-flow, with a feed inlet and retentate and permeate outlets. Filter has a stationary filter housing and the stator has a stationary housing.
The closest reference is Schoendorfer et al (US 4,670,147) which teaches all the elements of claim 1 except that it has a blood inlet, a break-away-tip plasma outlet, and no second outlet. There is no reason why one would modify this reference to add a second outlet, and such addition would require substantial redesign as well.
Schoendorfer has several other patents (see the attached 892), all of which do no teach a stator. Examiner had conducted comprehensive searches and found that while magnetic drive for rotary filters is well-known and common, all the references teach the drive itself as using a motor, without a stator and its winding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights