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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites “…furthermore has a second filter head equivalent to the first filter head,” which is indefinite because the term “equivalent” as used herein is unclear. Does applicant mean the second filter head is structurally identical to the first, or, is equivalent in some other terms, like simply covering the second end of the filtrate area, (the hollow fibers as disclosed,) or, functionally same but structurally different?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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) 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 3113864.
Applicant’s fig. 2c is copied herein with annotations showing the definitions/details as seen in the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
399
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 23 of this EP reference is copied herein with some annotations. The annotations identify the first and second axis as claimed.
Claims recite a filter module having a filter head with the openings. The rest of claim 10 only recite the shape of the filter head. That is, applicant’s filter head 210 is open to the left, to the right, and to the bottom, and closed on top. The bottom is open to a filter. The left and the right openings 211 have flared flanges. The other shapes recited are as a result of providing nozzle openings on a cylindrical wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
678
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
EP, fig 23, illustrates these structure. The left and the right openings are at 76 and 82 which extend outward with outer ends shown expanded or flared or with an elliptical expansion. The head is cylindrical, which results in a similar construction as claimed in claims 10, 12 and 14 – the progression of opening 211. EP filter has a second end with a second filter head, which is open.
The flow pattern as recited is only a result of the geometrical structure of the filter head, and therefore, would happen in EP as well.
The edge is also partially elliptical in shape as claimed in claims 11, 13 and 15. Please note that the structure of the filter head body is cylindrical, which means it has a circular cross-section in the plane of the first and second axes. Applicant depicts the same cross section in fig. 2, a-c. An elliptical shape becomes circular when the major and minor radii are equal.
Please note that claims 11-15 elaborately recite the cross-sections in the first- second and first-third axes planes, which is the same in EP.
Claim 16: EP fig. 23 has the structure as annotated: a partition separating the first part (top) and second part (bottom)
Claim 17: there is a filter 20 at the said second end.
Claims 18 and 20: several filter heads are interconnected as in claim 18 – see figures 18, 20 etc.
Claim 19: EP fails to show the dome-end, but that end is sealed or closed by the air inlet device 43. However, having this end as dome-shaped would have been only a simple change in shape (particularly when the cylinder diameter is larger than the size of the air inlet device 43,) and is not patentable unless otherwise shown. See MPEP 2144.0 – change of shape.
In general, the claim elements are directed to specific shapes in the filter head, which are considered unpatentable. MPEP 2144.04: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)”
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ikada et al (US 6,007,723).
PNG
media_image3.png
524
935
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ikada, fig. 1 is copied herein with annotations. It clearly teaches the elements of claims. The filter heads are cylindrical, with diametrically opposite inlet and outlet openings as claimed. Since the diameter of the inlet (32-12) and outlet (32-22) openings are smaller than the cylinder diameter of the filter head, applicant’s disclosed structure in fig. 2a and 2c will result, without the flared portions (not in claim 10). The first and second filter heads are “equivalent.” The flow pattern claimed would be inherent – similar structure.
Figures 2a and 2b of Ikada shows the end views of the filter heads assembled together, which resemble applicant’s fig. 2 a and 2c.
PNG
media_image4.png
446
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 10, improved flush flow, etc., are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The partially elliptical structures are only artifacts of the geometrical structure of the filter head, and are addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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