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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending
Claims 12-15 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-11 are currently amended
Claims 1-11 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/28/2023, 02/07/2024, and 08/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “comprising a pipe section-shaped housing” on multiple different indent lines. Examiner suggests to further amend the limitation to further include a colon and recite “comprising: a pipe section-shaped housing” for further clarity. FURTHER, lines 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 23 each state “housing” and instead should each state “pipe section-shaped housing” and/or “the pipe section-shaped housing” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 5 states “of which hollow-fibre bundle” and instead should state “of which the hollow-fibre bundle” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 8 states “the flow spaces are separated from one another at the housing ends” and instead should state “the first flow space and the second flow space are separated from one another at the two housing ends” for further clarity. ALSO, line 12 states “the flow-space seal,” and instead should state “the at least one flow-space seal,” for further clarity. IN ADDITION, lines 15, 19, 22, 26 and 27 each state “the end cap” and instead should each state “the at least one end cap” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “to Claim 1,” and instead should state “to claim 1,” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the housing” and instead should state “the pipe section-shaped housing” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 3 states “the end cap.” and instead should state “the at least one end cap.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “is at a further distance from the centre of gravity of the housing than the at least one breach and the flow-space seal.” and instead should state “is at the further distance from the centre of gravity of the pipe section-shaped housing than the at least one breach and the at least one flow-space seal.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “and the end cap are formed from the same group” and instead should state “and the at least one end cap are formed from a same group” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “of the housing and the end cap” and instead should state “of the pipe section-shaped housing and the at least one end cap” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 state “at the housing end.” and instead should state “at the two housing ends.” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “there are two end caps at the opposite ends” and instead should state “there are two end caps at opposite ends” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 3 and 5 each state “the housing” and instead should state “the pipe section-shaped housing” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the housing” and instead should state “the pipe section-shaped housing” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “to Claim 7,” and instead should state “to claim 7,” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 2-3 and 3-4 each state “the end caps” and instead should each state “the two end caps” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “to Claim 9,” and instead should state “to claim 9,” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “or dialysate” and instead should state “or a dialysate” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are 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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “the fibre cavities” on line 5, and “the housing interior” on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 1 recites the limitations “first fluid space the first opening” on line 19, and “second fluid space the second opening” on lines 26-27. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to claim? Claims 2-11 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the material” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the cross-sectional area” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the material” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baurmeister et al. (U.S. 4,724,900) (hereinafter “Baur”) in view of ASATSUMA et al. (U.S. 2019/0105608 A1) (hereinafter “Asatsuma”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Baur teaches a filter device for material exchange (see FIGS 1-3 and 5) (see col. 1 lines 11-15) (see col. 2 lines 46-51) (see col. 4 lines 4-10) (see col. 5 lines 3-22) comprising:
a pipe section-shaped housing having a centre of gravity and having two housing
ends (see FIG. 5, a pipe section-shaped housing/body 2 having two opposite housing ends across from each other) (see col. 4 lines 4-10) (see col. 5 lines 3-22), in which housing there is arranged a bundle (see FIG. 5, a bundle of hollow filaments 16) (see col. 1 lines 11-15) (see col. 2 lines 46-51) (see col. 4 lines 4-10) (see col. 5 lines 3-22), the fibre cavities of which the bundle form a first flow space (see FIG. 5, space within the bundle of hollow filaments 16 is a first flow space) (see col. 5 lines 3-22), and the housing interior surrounding the bundle forms a second flow space (see FIG. 5, space surrounding the bundle of hollow filaments 16 is second flow space) (see col. 5 lines 3-22),
wherein the flow spaces are separated from one another at the housing ends by at least one flow-space seal (see FIG. 5, sealing compound 3) (see col. 4 lines 4-10) (see col. 5 lines 3-22),
wherein the housing is provided with at least one breach at at least one end and
the at least one breach is arranged closer to the centre of gravity of the housing
than the flow-space seal (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘at least one breach’ to include openings) (see FIG. 5, holes/openings containing cross-sectional areas/ports 101 – 10V) (see FIG. 9, openings/holes 18) (see col. 4 lines 22-32) (see col. 6 lines 21-27),
comprising furthermore at least one end cap having a first and a second opening (see FIG. 1, end cap 1 having two connecting branches 5,6) (see col. 4 lines 4-10), wherein the housing and the at least one end cap form a first sealing area which connects the housing and the end cap in a sealing manner and wherein the first sealing area is at a further distance from the centre of gravity of the housing than the at least one breach (see col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see col. 5 lines 3-22), and
wherein a first fluid space is formed between the first sealing area and the first
opening of the end cap (see FIG. 1, two connecting branches 5, 6 containing a first fluid space/chamber 13 and a second fluid space/chamber 7, respectively) (see col. 4 lines 4-10), via which first fluid space the first opening is fluidically connected to the first flow space (see FIG. 1, two connecting branches 5, 6 containing a first fluid space/chamber 13 and a second fluid space/chamber 7, respectively) (see col. 4 lines 4-10),
wherein the housing and the at least one end cap form a second sealing area which connects the housing and the end cap in a sealing manner and the second sealing area is arranged closer to the centre of gravity of the housing than the flow-space seal and the at least one breach (see col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see col. 5 lines 3-22),
and wherein a second fluid space is formed between the first and second sealing area and the second opening of the end cap (see FIG. 1, two connecting branches 5, 6 containing a first fluid space/chamber 13 and a second fluid space/chamber 7, respectively) (see col. 4 lines 4-10), via which second fluid space the second opening of the end cap is fluidically connected to the second flow space through the at least one breach (see FIG. 1, two connecting branches 5, 6 containing a first fluid space/chamber 13 and a second fluid space/chamber 7, respectively) (see col. 4 lines 4-10),
wherein the first and second sealing area are not formed by a sealant (see col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see col. 5 lines 3-22).
Baur does not explicitly teach a hollow-fibre bundle composed of semi-
permeable membranes, as recited in amended, independent claim 1.
Asatsuma further teaches a similar filter device including a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes (see Asatsuma FIG. 1, a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes 3) (see Asatsuma paragraphs 1, 9-13 and 38-41).
Baur and Asatsuma are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a bundle capable of treating a fluid/liquid. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute the bundle of hollow filaments of Baur with a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes of Asatsuma for optimization purposes and to further remove unwanted contaminants and particles from a liquid/fluid source (see Asatsuma paragraphs 1, 9-13 and 38-41).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches in both the first and the second sealing area, molecules of the housing are entangled with molecules of the end cap (see Baur col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see Baur also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches the first sealing area is at a further distance from the centre of gravity of the housing than the at least one breach and the flow-space seal (see Baur col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see Baur also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches the pipe section-shaped housing and the end cap are formed from the same group of materials (see Baur FIG. 1, end cap 1 having two connecting branches 5,6) (see Baur FIG. 5, a pipe section-shaped housing/body 2 having two opposite housing ends across from each other) (see Baur col. 4 lines 4-10) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches the material of the housing and the end cap comprises polypropylene or copolymers of polypropylene or polycarbonate (see Baur FIG. 1, end cap 1 having two connecting branches 5,6) (see Baur FIG. 5, a pipe section-shaped housing/body 2 having two opposite housing ends across from each other). Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the material of the housing and the end cap to include polypropylene or copolymers of polypropylene or polycarbonate for optimization purposes (see Baur col. 4 lines 4-10) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches the first sealing area is equal to or larger than the cross-sectional area of the pipe section-shaped housing at the housing end (see Baur col. 1 lines 61-68 further discussing cross-sectional area) (see Baur col. 4 lines 41-68 further discussing sealing the housing and the end cap) (see Baur also FIG. 5, O-rings 17) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22 further discussing cross-sectional area).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches there are two end caps at the opposite ends of the pipe section-shaped housing and the housing is provided with breaches and flow-space seals at both ends and the breaches are in each case arranged closer to the centre of gravity of the housing than the flow-space seals (see Baur FIGS. 1-3 and 5 further illustrating end caps, housing, breaches and seals) (see Baur col. 4 lines 4-10) (see Baur col. 5 lines 3-22).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Baur further teaches the housing has a multiplicity of breaches at at least one end (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘at least one breach’ to include openings) (see Baur FIG. 5, holes/openings containing cross-sectional areas/ports 101 – 10V) (see Baur FIG. 9, openings/holes 18) (see Baur col. 4 lines 22-32) (see Baur col. 6 lines 21-27).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 7, wherein Baur further teaches the filter device is a dialyser and in that the first openings of the end caps allow an inflow of blood and an outflow of blood and in that the second openings of the end caps allow an inflow of dialysate and an outflow of dialysate (see Baur FIG. 7) (see Baur col. 5 lines 36-68).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 9, wherein Baur further teaches the pipe section-shaped housing does not comprise a dialysate inlet or dialysate outlet (see Baur FIG. 7) (see Baur col. 5 lines 36-68).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Baur in view of Asatsuma teaches the filter device according to claim 1, wherein Asatsuma further teaches a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes (see Asatsuma FIG. 1, a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes 3) (see Asatsuma paragraphs 1, 9-13 and 38-41).
Baur and Asatsuma are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a bundle capable of treating a fluid/liquid. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute the bundle of hollow filaments of Baur with a hollow-fibre bundle of semi-permeable membranes of Asatsuma, comprising a material of polysulfone, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polymethyl methacrylate, polyamide, polyester, cellulose or polyacrylonitrile, for optimization purposes and to further remove unwanted contaminants and particles from a liquid/fluid source (see Asatsuma paragraphs 1, 9-13 and 38-41).
Other References Considered
Sasai et al. (U.S. 2006/0099365 A1) (hereinafter “Sasai”) teaches a joint part for resin fuel tank and manufacturing method.
LAUER MARTIN et al. (WO 03/028864 A1) (hereinafter “Lauer”) teaches a filter device.
Buck et al. (U.S. 2011/0120932 A1) (hereinafter “Buck”) teaches a diffusion and/or filtration device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights