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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/274,523 application filed on July 27, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been fully considered. The examined claims are directed to a method.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2023. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 3-6, it appears that a conjunctive ‘and’ should precede the last element in the series. For example, claim 1 would read:
“. . . d) using the filter membrane to perform filtration on the mixed suspension prepared in step c), then performing fluorescence detection on obtained filtrate, and calculating concentration Ct of each of the fluorescent pellets in the filtrate according to the standard curve obtained in step b), and calculating retention rate R of the filtration membrane for each of the fluorescent pellets according to the following formula: R=(1-Ct/C0) x 100%; and
e) calculating the pore size and pore size distribution of the filter membrane according to the diameters and the obtained retention rates R of the group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance.
Claim 3, for example, would read: “The method according to claim 1, wherein step a) selects the following group of polystyrene fluorescent pellets as the reference substance:
. . .
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 100 nm and an emission wavelength of 460 nm; and
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 200 nm and an emission wavelength of 615 nm.”
Claims 2-10 depend n claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “. . . calculating the pore size and pore size distribution of the filter membrane according to the diameters and the obtained retention rates R of the group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance” is unclear.
First, no formular is provided for the calculation so one of ordinary skill may not know how to do the pre size and pore size distribution calculation. It is also unclear which diameters is being referenced.
Also, the method of calculating the concentration Ct of each of the fluorescent pellets is not stated. Is this a mass concentration similar to C0?
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN10683823; Zheng) in view of Chen et al. (CN109224867; Chen)(IDS of 08-10-2023)(English Machine Language Translations referenced below) and Wood et al. (US20130141722; Wood).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 10, Zheng discloses a method for determining pore size and pore size distribution of a filter membrane (Abstract; claims 1-6), characterized in that, the method comprises the following steps:
a) selecting a group of pellets having different diameters (different grain diameter or particle sizes; [0010]) and known wavelengths as a reference substance ([0009]-[0011], [0029]-[033], [0040], where grains or particles are interpreted as pellets);
b) plotting a standard curve between concentration and fluorescence intensity for each of the fluorescent pellets as the reference substance at its emission wavelength ([0009], [0030], [0031]);
c) uniformly dispensing the group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance in water to prepare a mixed suspension of which mass concentration of each of the fluorescent pellets is C0 ([0009], [0036]);
d) using the filter membrane to perform filtration on the mixed suspension prepared in step c), then performing fluorescence detection on obtained filtrate, and calculating concentration Ct of each of the fluorescent pellets in the filtrate according to the standard curve obtained in step b), and calculating retention rate R of the filtration membrane for each of the fluorescent pellets according to the following formula: R = (1-Ct/C0) x 100% ([0009], [0010], claims 1-6; see KWIC Hits version); [and]
e) calculating the pore size and pore size distribution of the filter membrane according to the diameters and the obtained retention rates R of the group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance ([0009], [0010], [0016], [0020]).
Therefore, Zheng discloses the claimed invention, except
selecting a group of fluorescent pellets having different emission wavelengths as reference objects to obtain a standard curve between the fluorescent microsphere concentration and the fluorescence intensity; and
performing onetime filtration on a prepared mixed suspension by using a filter membrane to be measured, then performing fluorescence detection on an obtained filtrate, and calculating the pore size and pore size distribution of said filter membrane.
Chen discloses a method for characterizing the pore size of a microporous membrane by formulating spherical SiO2 microspheres in a normal particle size distribution, filtering
the suspension by using a microporous membrane, and using a laser particle size instrument to obtain the pore size and the pore size distribution of the microporous membrane (Abstract). Laser particle size analysis is performed on the suspension before and after filtration ([0010], [00011], [0040]).
Wood discloses a system and methods for analyzing the pore size of a substrate or device containing substrates adapted to separate fluids, where the invention is useful for identifying substrates used to isolate particulate matter or to form a barrier, such as barrier films, membranes or filters having uniform or specified pore sizes and for estimating the pore sizes thereof in a non-destructive fashion (Abstract; [0002]). The system utilizes a device for creating a pressure differential across the wall of the substrate and includes a light source (24) spaced front the exit of the substrate or device containing the substrate adapted for illuminating particles exiting the exit of the substrate or device containing the substrate ([0007], [0023]).
The light can also be used to produce a fluorescence or phosphorescence from the particles exiting the substrate ([0024]). Particles that fluoresce or phosphoresce, by coating, doping, or chemically tagging particles with a fluorescent or phosphorescent marker, can be excited and visualized or detected using light having a wavelength that will cause the particles to fluoresce or phosphoresce. It is preferable that the light source exhibit a wavelength that matches the wavelength at which the fluorescing or phosphorescing particles fluoresce or phosphoresce (Id.). In a preferred embodiment the fluorescing or phosphorescing particles are dispersible in a fluid (Id.).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fluorescent pellets and in particular polystyrene microspheres or pellets with different particle sizes and emission wavelengths to replace the polystyrene nanoparticles of Zheng, for visualizing, distinguishing and detecting the microspheres, where determining a standard curve between the fluorescent microsphere concentration and the fluorescence intensity and carrying out the recited calculations is deducible from Zheng and Chen’s combined method and provided formulas.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent pellets are polystyrene fluorescent pellets (claim 1 analysis); Claim 9: The fluorescence detection described in step d) refers to sequentially performing fluorescence detection on the obtained filtrate under the emission wavelength corresponding to each constituent fluorescent pellet in the mixed suspension (claim 1 analysis, where this is viewed as implicit); and Claim 10: The method is characterized in that, step e) first uses a software to make a nonlinear fitting curve between the diameter and the retention rate R of the group of fluorescent pellets as a reference substance, and then obtains the values of the pore diameter d5o and d90 according to the fitting curve, and then calculates the pore size distribution f(d) according to the following pore size distribution formula:
f(d) =
PNG
media_image1.png
83
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]
and plots the pore size distribution figure, where d represents the pore size and π is the circumference ratio (Zheng, claim 6, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention been obvious to employ software for conducting the calculations).
Regarding claims 3-9, Zheng, Chen and Wood combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, except wherein step a) selects the following group of polystyrene fluorescent pellets as the reference substance:
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 20 nm and an emission wavelength of 488 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 77 nm and an emission wavelength of 695 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 100 nm and an emission wavelength of 460 nm; [and]
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 200 nm and an emission wavelength of 615 nm.
However, Zheng allows for wide variation in selecting different particle sizes, emission wavelengths, concentrations and filter types ([0008]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to routinely experiment with alternately sized polystyrene fluorescent pellets having different emission wavelengths, and to use an appropriate concentration and filter membrane type, to determine which such combination is suitable and effective, and for potentially optimizing the process, including selecting from one or more of the above-recited diameters and emission wavelengths.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 4: In the method, step a) selects the following group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance:
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 20 nm and an emission wavelength of 488 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 100 nm and an emission wavelength of 460 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 200 nm and an emission wavelength of 615 nm; [and]
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 300 nm and an emission wavelength of 695 nm (claim 3 analysis); Claim 5: In the method, step a) selects the following group of fluorescent pellets as the reference substance:
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 77 nm and an emission wavelength of 695 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 100 nm and an emission wavelength of 460 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 200 nm and an emission wavelength of 615 nm; [and]
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 500 nm and an emission wavelength of 488 nm (claim 3 analysis); Claim 6: In the method, step a) selects the following group of polystyrene fluorescent pellets as the reference substance:
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 100 nm and an emission wavelength of 460 nm;
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 200 nm and an emission wavelength of 615 nm.
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 300 nm and an emission wavelength of 695 nm; [and]
polystyrene fluorescent pellets having a diameter of 500 nm and an emission wavelength of 488 nm (claim 3 analysis); Claim 7: In the method, C0 in step c) is 0.1-2.0 µg/mL (claim 3 analysis); Claim 8: The filtration in step d) employs a needle-type filter, and the amount of the mixed suspension used for filtration operation is 2-4 mL (claim 3 analysis).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779