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
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma US 2022/0235306.
Claim 1, Sharma teaches a filter system comprising: a separation layer having a plurality of apertures that allow passage of a filtrate portion of a feed material from a first side of the separation layer to a second side of the separation layer, hydrophilic material integrated with the separation layer and hydrophobic material integrated with the separation layer (par 1, 2, 9, 35, table 2). The recitation of the hydrophilic material promoting the passage of the filtrate portion of the feed material through the plurality of apertures and the hydrophobic material inhibiting blockage of the plurality of apertures by a retentate portion of the feed material is a recitation of an intended use of the system. The separation layer of Sharma is capable of performing the recited use as it will inherently be able to perform this intended use as it has the same structure as the separation layer recited.
Claims 2-4 and 11-12, Sharma further teaches the hydrophilic material is located on walls of the apertures and the hydrophobic material is located on a first major surface at the first side of the separation layer (par 1, 2, 9, 25-26, 35, table 2); and the separation layer is tubular or planar is shape (par 19).
Claim 13, Sharma teaches a filter system comprising: a separation layer having a plurality of apertures that allow passage of a filtrate portion of a feed material from a first side of the separation layer to a second side of the separation layer, hydrophilic material integrated with the plurality of apertures and hydrophobic material integrated with the separation layer on a first major surface at the first side of the separation layer (par 1, 2, 9, 25-26, 35, table 2). The recitation of the hydrophilic material promoting the passage of the filtrate portion of the feed material through the plurality of apertures and the hydrophobic material inhibiting blockage of the plurality of apertures by a retentate portion of the feed material is a recitation of an intended use of the system. The separation layer of Sharma is capable of performing the recited use as it will inherently be able to perform this intended use as it has the same structure as the separation layer recited.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma US 2022/0235306.
Claim 5, Sharma further teaches the plurality of apertures (pores) may have pore sizes and pore size distributions that are appropriate for the given application (par 23) but does not teach the specific diameter of 2.8 angstroms +/- 20%. The recited aperture size is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apertures and Sharma teaches the pore size can be varied depending on the given application. The recited dimensions of the aperture are a recitation of a specific application, namely nanofiltration or reverse osmosis separation. Each is well-known in the art and well established uses of membranes and would have been obvious applications for membranes to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6, Sharma teaches the separation layer having pores but does not teach the relative area of the separation layer covered by the apertures. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the area of the separation layer covered by apertures as a result effective variable as a larger area covered by apertures would provide a more porous membrane and a greater flow of fluid through the layer but also provides a weaker layer and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to optimize the area covered by the apertures. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). The recited range of area covered by apertures appears to by an optimized area to achieve the desired flow through the system.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma US 2022/0235306 in view of Kammerloher EP 1,743,689.
Claims 7-10, Sharma teaches the system of claim 1 but does not teach specific flow channels for how to transport fluid to and from the filter.
Kammerloher teaches a filter system comprising: a separation layer (at 10) having a plurality of apertures that allow passage of a filtration portion of a feed material from a first side of the separation layer to a second side of the separation layer, and a first flow channel (14) through which the feed material flows and a second flow channel (4) through which the filtration portion of the feed material flows, a pump (20) configured to apply pressure in the first flow channel and a vacuum pump (25) configured to apply a vacuum in the second flow channel (fig. 1-7). In the absence of a teaching of a suitable housing for the filter of Sharma one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a suitable housing for the filter of Sharma. The recited type of housing is well-known and common in the filter art, as demonstrated by Kammerloher and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 14 and 18-20, Sharma teaches a filter system comprising: a separation layer having a plurality of apertures that allow passage of a filtrate portion of a feed material from a first side of the separation layer to a second side of the separation layer, hydrophilic material integrated with the separation layer and hydrophobic material integrated with the separation layer (par 1, 2, 9, 35, table 2). The recitation of the hydrophilic material promoting the passage of the filtrate portion of the feed material through the plurality of apertures and the hydrophobic material inhibiting blockage of the plurality of apertures by a retentate portion of the feed material is a recitation of an intended use of the system. The separation layer of Sharma is capable of performing the recited use as it will inherently be able to perform this intended use as it has the same structure as the separation layer recited. Sharma does not teach specific input and outputs to transport fluid to and from the filter.
Kammerloher teaches a filter system comprising: an input (2) to receive a feed material, a tubular outer structure (pipe) (7), a tubular inner structure, a first output (4) to output a filtrate portion of the feed material, a second output (3) to output a retentate portion of the feed material, where the tubular inner structure includes a separation layer (at 10) having a plurality of apertures that allow passage of a filtration portion of a feed material from a first side of the separation layer to a second side of the separation layer, and a first flow channel (14) through which the feed material flows and a second flow channel (4) through which the filtration portion of the feed material flows, a pump (20) configured to apply pressure in the first flow channel and a vacuum pump (25) configured to apply a vacuum in the second flow channel (fig. 1-7). In the absence of a teaching of a suitable housing for the filter of Sharma one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a suitable housing for the filter of Sharma. The recited type of housing is well-known and common in the filter art, as demonstrated by Kammerloher and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 15-17, Sharma further teaches the hydrophilic material is located on walls of the apertures and the hydrophobic material is located on a first major surface at the first side of the separation layer (par 1, 2, 9, 25-26, 35, table 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779