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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending:
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Claims 11-18 and 20-21 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 and 20-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2021 110 264 filed on 04/22/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for inserting the hollow fiber membrane bundle from the cavity formed by the upper and lower tube half-shells into a housing tube disposed end-to-end” recited in claim 10. The instant specification does not show a specific structure; therefore it is interpreted to be any conventionally known device capable of performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “and/or”; it is unclear what it intended by the slash (‘/’) notation thus rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase “and/or” is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the limitation requires: (i) A alone, (ii) B alone, or both A and B together. Further, nested “and/or” statements in claim 5 obscure the metes and bounds of the claim thus rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Dependent claims 4-7 and 9 recite a similar limitation therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim limitation “means for inserting the hollow fiber membrane bundle from the cavity formed by the upper and lower tube half-shells into a housing tube disposed end-to-end” recited in claim 10, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the instant specification does not show the corresponding structure that corresponds to the means for inserting the hollow fiber membrane. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772).
Regarding claim 1, Dannenmaier teaches an apparatus for bundling hollow fiber membranes (filter housing 13), comprising a lower part (portion 21) comprising a lower tube half-shell having two side edges and an inner side comprising a concavely curved surface for receiving an array of hollow fiber membranes, an upper part (portion 23) comprising an upper tube half-shell complementary to the lower tube half-shell and having two side edges and an inner side comprising a concavely curved surface wherein lower part and/or upper part are arranged movably relative to each other in the apparatus (the second housing portion 23 is pivoted onto the first housing portion 21 by means of the film hinge 27, see ¶53), and wherein the apparatus (via hinge 27) is configured such that the lower part and the upper part are positioned in a first position such that the lower tube half-shell is capable of receiving an array of hollow fiber membranes in the first position (see Fig. 2 of filter housing 13 in an open state), and the lower part and upper part are positioned in a second position such that the lower tube half-shell and the upper tube half-shell enclose a cavity such that an array of hollow fiber membranes present in the cavity is capable of being bundled (the filter housing to a form a bundle of the hollow fibers, see ¶20 and see Fig. 5 of filter housing 13 in the closed state).
With respect to the limitation “and/or” in the claims, the broadest limitation “or” is applied to all the claims even if the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the narrower limitation “and”.
Regarding claim 2, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the concavely curved surface of the lower tube half-shell describes a segment of a substantially cylindrical shape (see Figs. 4-5), and in that the concavely curved surface of the upper tube half-shell describes a segment of a substantially cylindrical shape (see Figs. 4-5), so that the concavely curved surfaces of the lower and the upper tube half-shells enclose a substantially cylindrical cavity in a second position of the lower part and the upper part (120) (see Figs. 4-5).
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.
Claims 3, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772) in view of Baumeister (US 2021/0106949).
Regarding claim 3, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the lower tube half-shell is oversized relative to the upper tube half-shell in the region of the side edges of the lower tube half-shell, or in that the upper tube half-shell is oversized relative to the lower tube half-shell in the region of the side edges of the upper tube half-shell, the apparatus being configured such that in the second position of lower part and upper part, the upper tube half-shell is in engagement with the lower tube half-shell, or in that in the second position of the lower part and the upper part, the lower tube half-shell is in engagement with the upper tube half-shell.
In a related field of endeavor, Baumeister teaches a device and process for the manufacture of hollow fiber membrane bundles (see ABS) comprising an upper tube half-shell (left flap 2) is oversized relative to the lower tube half-shell (base 1) in the region of the side edges of the upper tube half-shell (the flap 2 on the right side of base 1 is larger than flap 2 on the left side of the base 1, see ¶40 and Fig. 1(a) and (b)), the apparatus being configured such that in the second position of lower part and upper part, the upper tube half-shell is in engagement with the lower tube half-shell, or in that in the second position of the lower part and the upper part, the lower tube half-shell is in engagement with the upper tube half-shell (see Fig. 1(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the half-shells of Dannenmaier by configuring the upper tube half-shell to be oversized relative to the lower tube half-shell in the region of the side edges of the upper tube half-shell while engagement in the second position as disclosed by Baumeister because it aids in interlocking the device in a closed configuration (Baumeister, see ¶40).
Regarding claim 7, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the concavely curved surfaces of the lower and/or upper tube half-shells are provided with a coating.
In a related field of endeavor, Baumeister teaches a device and process for the manufacture of hollow fiber membrane bundles (see ABS) half-shells are provided with a coating (wrapping material are coated, see ¶25; the wrapping material is sheet 8 shown in Figs. 2(a) and (b)). The phrase “half shells provided with a coating” is construed broadly under BRI to encompass structures in which half-shells are associated with, covered by, or furnished with a coating or a coated wrapping material, and is not limited to a coating formed directly on the underlying half-shell. Accordingly, Baumeister teaches half-shells are provided with a coating under BRI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the half-shells of Dannenmaier by providing the half-shells with a coating as disclosed by Baumeister because it aids in securing multiple bundles in a sheet of wrapping material (Baumeister, see ¶26-27) and wrapped bundles are less prone to be damaged during handling and transport than those not enveloped (Baumeister, see ¶35).
Regarding claim 9, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a receiving area (corresponds to interior of filter housing 13)…
Dannenmaier does not teach that a housing tube which is movably arranged in the apparatus relative to the lower part and/or to the upper part, and the apparatus is further configured such that in the second position of upper part and lower part a housing tube can be arranged adjoining the lower and upper tube half shell on the face side via a position of the receiving area.
In a related field of endeavor, Baumeister teaches a device and process for the manufacture of hollow fiber membrane bundles (see ABS) comprising a housing tube (sheet 8 of wrapping material forms a tube, see Figs. 2(a) and (b)) which is movably arranged in the apparatus relative to the lower part and/or to the upper part (see ¶42, Figs. 2(a) and (b)), and the apparatus is further configured such that in the second position of upper part and lower part a housing tube can be arranged adjoining the lower and upper tube half shell on the face side via a position of the receiving area (see Figs. 2(b) and (c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the receiving area of Dannenmaier by incorporating a housing tube (sheet 8 of wrapping material which form a housing tube) as disclosed by Baumeister because it aids in securing multiple bundles in a sheet of wrapping material (Baumeister, see ¶26-27) and wrapped bundles are less prone to be damaged during handling and transport than those not enveloped (Baumeister, see ¶35).
Regarding claim 10, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 9.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the apparatus comprises means for inserting the hollow fiber membrane bundle from the cavity formed by the upper and lower tube half-shells into a housing tube disposed end-to-end.
Baumeister further teaches means (transport device 9) for inserting the hollow fiber membrane bundle from the cavity formed by the upper and lower tube half-shells into a housing tube (170) disposed end-to-end (see Figs. 3(a) and (b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Dannenmaier by incorporating means for inserting the hollow fiber membrane bundle as disclosed by Baumeister because it conveniently loads and unloads wrapped bundles (Baumeister, see ¶43).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772) in view of Yoneda (WO 2013/065195).
Regarding claim 4, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the side edges of the upper tube half-shell and/or the lower tube half-shell are chamfered.
In a related field of endeavor, Yoneda teaches a fiber-bundle cutting device (see ABS) comprising side edges of the upper tube half-shell and/or the lower tube half-shell are chamfered (corresponds to beveled/angled engagement surfaces around groove region in Figs. 5(a) and (b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side edges of the upper tub-shell or the lower tube half-shell of the Dannenmaier to be chamfered as disclosed by Yoneda because the inclined surfaces allow the bundle body to be reliably held (Yoneda, see pg. 11).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772) in view of Suzuki (US 2011/0114551).
Regarding claim 5, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the concavely curved surfaces of the lower and/or the upper tube half-shell comprise a plurality of drillings, and the apparatus is configured to flow air through the drillings onto the inner side of the lower and/or the upper tube half-shell.
In a related field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches a submerged hollow fiber membrane module (see ABS) comprising a concavely curved surfaces (cylindrical housing 2) (a cylindrical housing inherently comprises concavely curved surfaces) of the lower and/or the upper tube half-shell comprise a plurality of drillings (openings 2a), and the apparatus is configured to flow air through the drillings onto the upper tube half-shell (compressed air outflows from the openings 2a and the introduced air outflows from the upper half of the external exposed part, see ¶88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the concavely curved surfaces of Dannenmaier by incorporating a plurality of drillings as disclosed by Suzuki because it allows the hollow fiber membrane to be configured for air scrubbing which provides the benefit of adequately cleaning the surfaces of the hollow fiber membranes (Suzuki, see ¶5-9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772) in view of Suzuki (US 2011/0114551) and further in view of Sakai (USPN 5,282,779).
Regarding claim 6, Dannenmaier and Suzuki teach the apparatus according to claim 5.
The combination does not teach that at least a part of the drillings in the lower and/or upper tube half-shell are aligned in a direction that is abutting at a coinciding angle of 100 to 800 or 200 to 700 or 300 to 600 to the central axis of the cylindrical cavity.
In a related field of endeavor, Sakai teaches an air jet for producing filter plug for cigarette (see ABS) wherein at least a part of the drillings are aligned in a direction that is abutting at a coinciding angle of 100 to 800 to the central axis of the cylindrical cavity (through holes relative to the running direction of the fiber bundle is in the range of 10-120 degrees, see C3/L15-20; the prior art overlaps with the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10-1200 completely encompasses the claimed range of 10-800. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drillings of Dannenmaier (as modified by Suzuki) by incorporating a plurality of drillings as disclosed by Sakai because at said angle the traveling speed through the fiber bundle is not interrupted (Sakai, see C4/L15-25).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 2004/0182772) in view of Beck (US 2023/0074327).
Regarding claim 8, Dannenmaier teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dannenmaier does not teach that the apparatus comprises at least one movable cutting device for cutting the hollow fiber membrane bundle in the second position of the upper part and lower part to a predetermined measure of length.
In a related field of endeavor, Beck teaches a device for cutting hollow fiber membranes (see ABS) comprising at least one movable cutting device (cutting device comprising at least one rotating blade or knife, see ¶12) for cutting the hollow fiber membrane bundle in the second position of the upper part and lower part to a predetermined measure of length (rotating blade which cuts the hollow fiber membrane into pieces having a predefined length, see ¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Dannenmaier by incorporating at least one movable cutting device as disclosed by Beck because it provides membranes of defined length proven to yield a precise cut without deforming or fraying the hollow fiber membrane (Beck, see ¶29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights