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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species of Fig. 1, claims 16-31 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled claim 32 directed towards non-elected species in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-25 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “one or more flat vessel chambers”, and the claim also recites each of the flat vessel chambers” (indicating more than one chambers) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the vessel chamber" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Preceding limitation recites that “the filter module comprising one or more flat vessel chambers” indicating there can be more than one flat vessel chambers.
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.
Claim(s) 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingber et al. (US 2011/0250585A1), in view of Hongo et al. (US 2010/0224551A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ingber teaches a filtration device (refer fig. 2A, 2B) comprising:
a filter module (200) adapted for filtration of media, the filter module comprising one or more flat vessel chambers (refer chambers refer part 204 having channel 230 or part 206 having channel 240), each of the flat vessel chambers is formed between two parts (204 and 206) and comprises one or more flexible volume chambers (232 in part 202) positioned in the first part (202) in each end of the flat vessel chamber (refer fig. 2B, the flexible volume chambers extend along the flat vessel chamber);
at least one inlet (211) in the first part (204) (the limitation “for the media to be filtered” is intended use limitation of the inlet);
at least one outlet (215) in the first part (204) (the limitation “for retentate” is intended use limitation of the outlet),
wherein the inlets and the outlets are positioned at distal ends of the vessel chamber (refer fig. 2A or 2B); and 230
at least one semipermeable membrane (208) forming a wall separating the vessel chamber from a drain area, the drain area comprising a permeate outlet (219 or 221 in part 206).
Ingber does not disclose that the semipermeable membrane is in the second part. However, selecting whether to provide a membrane sandwiched between two parts (as shown in fig. 2A/2B of Ingber) or provide a membrane within channel/chamber of one the parts as disclosed in fig. 1 of Hongo (refer membrane 14 provided within a chamber of part 12a) would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Inger and Hongo establishes two different configurations achieving same result of filtration by passing a liquid through the membrane.
Regarding claim 18, Ingber teaches limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Ingber further discloses that ports (217) are connected to a pressure source, e.g. air (refer [0083], [0095]).
Regarding claim 19, Ingber teaches limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Ingber discloses that each of the flexible volume chambers (232) extend along the vessel chambers (230, 240) and comprises air (refer [0083], [0095]).
Regarding claim 20, Ingber teaches limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Ingber teaches that the vessel chamber has an overall planar design with at least one planar side covered by the a-semipermeable membrane, the planar side of the vessel chamber being formed with an overlaying structure (Refer fig. 2A, 2B).
Claim(s) 17, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingber et al. (US 2011/0250585A1), in view of Hongo et al. (US 2010/0224551A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hjelmsmark (WO 2018/145714).
Regarding claim 17, Ingber teaches limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Ingber discloses that the flexible volume chamber comprises a flexible wall (Refer [0096] disclosing bending/bulging of wall(s) of the flexible volume chamber). Ingber does not disclose providing a gasket to separate the flexible volume chambers from the vessel chamber.
Hjelmsmark teaches a filtration device comprising flexible volume chambers (14, 15) separated from vessel chamber (5) by flexible gaskets (16, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter device of Inger to use flexible gasket to separate flexible volume chamber from vessel chamber because Hjelmsmark discloses that it is advantageous that with a simple flat gasket the liquid is sealed, while at the same time an air chamber is formed.
Regarding claim 21, Ingber teaches limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. In fig. 6, Ingber discloses a plurality of filter modules connected to process a fluid. Ingber does not disclose that the filter modules are connected to one or more vibration motors.
Hjelmsmark teaches a filtration device for liquid filtration having a vessel housing for the filter-plate assembly and one or more flexible volume chambers being filled with gas, wherein the vessel housing including the filter-plate assembly is subjected to a vibrating motion (abstract). The vibration motion is caused by a vibration device comprising a vibration motor (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter device of Inger to provide vibration motion to the filter device(s) using vibration motor to prevent fouling of membrane as taught by Hjelmsmark.
Regarding claim 22, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. Hjelmsmark further teaches that the direction of vibrating motion from the one or more vibration motors is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the flexible volume chambers (Refer fig. 2).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. The limitations of claims 23 and 24 are reciting a mode/method of operation of the filter device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 25, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. Ingber teaches that the device comprises inlet and outlets connected to vessel chambers. Regarding which material is being processed by the device, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Claim(s) 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingber et al. (US 2011/0250585A1), in view of Hjelmsmark (WO 2018/145714).
Regarding claim 26, Ingber teaches a filtration device comprising:
a filter module (200) adapted for pressure driven filtration of media, the filter module comprises at least first (204) and second (206) half parts that are adapted for edgewise bonding (refer [0161]),
the first and second half parts together creating an internal flat vessel chamber (refer fig. 2A, 3A), wherein a first half part comprises in one end a feed inlet (211) and in the opposite end a retentate outlet (215), the first half part further comprising at least two flexible volume chambers (refer channels 232) being filled with gas (Refer [0095]), being spaced apart within the first part (refer fig. 2C), and being proximal to the feed inlet and the retentate outlet (the channel 232 extend along the vessel chamber), respectively, and
wherein the second part comprises a permeate outlet (219 or 221), a drain area (the channel 240 formed between outlets 219 and 221), and a semipermeable membrane (208) covering the drain area and being fluid tight sealed between the drain area and the flexible chamber (refer fig. 2B, [0161]).
wherein the flexible volume chambers have at least one flexible chamber wall planar to the flat vessel chamber and adapted to expand and/or compress a volume of the flexible volume chambers to allow a retentate to be filtered in the vessel chamber to move back and forth relative to a surface of the semipermeable membrane (refer [0095] and [0096] disclosing flexible volume chamber making chamber walls to bend or buldge which causes the membrane to stretch and move along creating mechanical forces at interface).
Ingber does not teach that the filter device comprises a vibration motor having a receptacle for mounting the filter module, the vibration motor being adapted to provide a vibrating motion to the filter module, and that liquid in retentate channel move back and forth relative to a surface of the semipermeable membrane in response to the filtration device being subjected to the vibrating motion.
Hjelmsmark teaches a filtration device for liquid filtration having a vessel housing for the filter-plate assembly and one or more flexible volume chambers being filled with gas, wherein the vessel housing including the filter-plate assembly is subjected to a vibrating motion (abstract). The vibration motion is caused by a vibration device comprising a vibration motor (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter device of Inger to provide vibration motion to the filter device(s) using vibration motor to prevent fouling of membrane as taught by Hjelmsmark. The vibration movement causes the liquid in retentate chamber to move back and forth.
Regarding claim 27, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Hjelmsmark teaches that the vibration motor is adapted to provide linear vibrating motion (Refer fig. 2, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Hjelmsmark teaches that the vibration motor provides vibration motion to the filter module through an eccentric axis (Refer fig. 2, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 29 , Ingber teaches a filtration device comprising:
a filter module (200) adapted for continuous pressure driven filtration of media, the filter module comprising at least a first part (204) and a second part (206) being adapted for edgewise bonding (Refer [0095]), the first and second parts creating an internal flat vessel chamber (refer fig. 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A),
wherein the first part comprises a feed inlet (211) in one end, a retentate outlet (215) in an opposite end, and one or more flexible volume chambers (232) at either end of the long flat vessel chamber,
wherein the second part includes a drain area (refer channel 240 formed in second part) and a semipermeable membrane (208) forming the side of vessel chamber wall that is positioned on top of the drain area (refer fig. 2B), the drain area is positioned in a cavity in the second part and connected to a permeate drain (219 or 221), the semipermeable membrane is sealed to the second part (refer [0095]),
Ingber does not teach that the flexible volume chambers are sealed off from the vessel chamber by a flexible gasket membrane that is generally parallel to the flat vessel chamber, and the device comprises a vibration driving motor connected to the filter module via the connection receptacle to cause the filter module to vibrate (i) back and forth or (ii) up and down when suspended in suitable springs.
Hjelmsmark teaches a filtration device for liquid filtration having a vessel housing for the filter-plate assembly and one or more flexible volume chambers being filled with gas, wherein the vessel housing including the filter-plate assembly is subjected to a vibrating motion (abstract). The flexible volume chambers (14, 15) separated from vessel chamber (5) by flexible gaskets (16, 17). The vibration motion is caused by a vibration device comprising a vibration motor (11) making filter module to vibrate (i) back and forth or (ii) up and down when suspended in suitable springs (Refer fig. 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter device of Inger to use flexible gasket to separate flexible volume chamber from vessel chamber because Hjelmsmark discloses that it is advantageous that with a simple flat gasket the liquid is sealed, while at the same time an air chamber is formed, and to provide vibration motion to the filter device(s) using vibration motor making filter module to vibrate (i) back and forth or (ii) up and down when suspended in suitable springs to prevent fouling of membrane as taught by Hjelmsmark.
Regarding claim 30, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 29 as set forth above. Hjelmsmark teaches that the vibration motor is adapted to provide linear vibrating motion (Refer fig. 2, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, modified Ingber teaches limitations of claim 29 as set forth above. Hjelmsmark teaches that the vibration motor provides vibration motion to the filter module through an eccentric axis (Refer fig. 2, fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777