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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that cited reference Lamouret (EP 1512452 A1) does not teach that the first and second filters are directly stacked, as claimed in the amended claims filed 05/07/2026. This is not found persuasive because said amendments were made after the restriction requirement filed on 04/20/2026. Furthermore, Lamouret still reads on the amended limitation because the phrase “directly stacked together” does not explicitly require that the claimed filters directly touch one another; rather, the claim simply requires that the filters are in the same stack.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 7 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 7 is unclear because it requires that the liquid reservoir comprises a third layer of the first filter without claiming a second layer of the first filter. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is being interpreted as any layer of said filter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 6093230 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a filter system (Fig 3-4, filter/aerosol trap 46) comprising: a housing defining an interior chamber (Fig 3, vacuum port 30 defines an interior chamber therein) with a chamber opening (Fig 3, aperture 48) and an outlet port disposed on a base opposite of the chamber opening (Fig 3, outlet opposite aperture 48 extending from the upper portion of base 44); a first support member coupled to the housing (Fig 3, retainer 42); a first filter positioned over the chamber opening of the housing (Fig 3-4, filter 66); and a second filter positioned between the first support member and the first filter so that the second filter and the first filter are directly stacked together (Fig 3-4, filter 54 is between filter 66 and retainer 42), wherein a liquid reservoir is defined by the first filter and the second filter (Fig 3-5, void 72).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson discloses that the liquid reservoir has a thickness from 0.04 millimeters to 15 millimeters (Fig 3-5 Col 3 ln 66- col 6 ln 2, spacer 56 may be 1/16 inch thick, which determines the thickness of void 72).
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson discloses that the liquid reservoir comprises a third layer of the first filter (Fig 3-4. Col 4 ln 44-64 Col 6 ln 36-43. Filter 66 may be made of the same material as filter 54, which may be a fibrous material. The lowest fiber layer of filter 66 is considered the third layer of first filter 66 and delimits the upper boundary of the reservoir 72).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson discloses that the liquid reservoir comprises a second support member positioned between the first filter and the second filter so that the first filter and the second filter are spaced apart from each other (Fig 3-5, spacer 56).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson discloses a splash guard coupled to the first support member and extending from the first support member in a direction opposite from the housing, the splash guard defining an inlet and an outlet (Fig 2, overflow shut off valve 32 is coupled to 42 and extends in a direction opposite from 30).
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson discloses that the splash guard has a conical shape, wherein the outlet of the splash guard is wider than the inlet of the splash guard (Fig 2, cage 38 of 32 has a substantially conical tapering shape, with the wider opening disposed at the top near clamps 38 and the smaller opening at the lowest portion of 36).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 6093230 A) in view of Gilding (US 20210100691 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson discloses a filter assembly capable of allowing high flow rates while effectively trapping about 99.7 % of the aerosolized microorganisms and particulates (Col 1 ln 58-63), but does not explicitly disclose that the second filter includes a liquid entry pressure greater than or equal to 75 kPa for 10 minutes at a surface tension of 55.5 mN/m and maintain an airflow of greater than 20 litres/m in at a pressure drop of 11.5 kPa at an active area of 9.3 cm2.
However, Gilding teaches filters for a medical device, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the second filter includes a liquid entry pressure greater than or equal to 75 kPa for 10 minutes at a surface tension of 55.5 mN/m and maintain an airflow of greater than 20 litres/m in at a pressure drop of 11.5 kPa at an active area of 9.3 cm2 (¶[00037-00039] of Applicant’s spec describes the materials and structures of second filter 104, which comprise one of “expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), polyethylene, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethersulfone, or an electrospun polymeric material,” and a total thickness of “about 100 microns to about 750 microns.” Gilding teaches a filter membrane 236 (Fig 1 ¶[0055][0057]) that may comprise hydrophobic polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) and may have a thickness of less than 0.5 mm, which would necessarily meet the claimed requirements based on Applicant’s specification. Thus, Gilding teaches a filter membrane that is fully capable of a liquid entry pressure greater than or equal to 75 kPa for 10 minutes at a surface tension of 55.5 mN/m and maintain an airflow of greater than 20 litres/m in at a pressure drop of 11.5 kPa at an active area of 9.3 cm2) to prevent excess exudate from entering the pump or its associated tubing (¶[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Johnson so that the second filter includes a liquid entry pressure greater than or equal to 75 kPa for 10 minutes at a surface tension of 55.5 mN/m and maintain an airflow of greater than 20 litres/m in at a pressure drop of 11.5 kPa at an active area of 9.3 cm2 as taught by Gilding, to prevent excess exudate from entering the pump or its associated tubing (as motivated by Gilding ¶[0022]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 6093230 A) in view of Teugels (US 20050132826 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson is silent whether the liquid reservoir has a thickness from 15 millimeters to 80 millimeters.
However, Teugels teaches a double membrane filter assembly, thus from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, wherein the liquid reservoir has a thickness from 15 millimeters to 80 millimeters (Fig 1 ¶[0021] lumen 42 creates a space between filters 50 and 60 with a length 44 of 15-30 mm) to provide sufficient time and distance to optimally prevent contamination (¶[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Johnson so that the liquid reservoir has a thickness from 15 millimeters to 80 millimeters as taught by Teugels to provide sufficient time and distance to optimally prevent contamination (as motivated by Teugels ¶[0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEE FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5 ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
TIMOTHY LEE. FLYNN
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights