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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is one long run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please insert the foreign publication number and date and the WIPO publication number and date after the application numbers cited to which this application claims priority.
Please correct the misspelled word “hemodia” in paragraph [0006] of the Specification.
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, 2, 5-12, 14-17, 19, 20 and their dependent claims 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 ends” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the lumina” on line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “their front end” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each of which” on line 14. It is not clear to what limitations this limitation refers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second flow region” on lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each of which” on line 19. It is not clear to what limitations this limitation refers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end regions” on line 23. It is not clear if this limitation refers to both “the first end region” and “the second end region” or not. Examiner interprets it to refer to both.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the actual effective length” and “the inner diameter” on lines 27 & 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “the membrane surface area” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the packing density” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the amplitude” and “the wavelength” on lines 3 & 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the end regions” on line 2. It is not clear if this limitation refers to both “the first end region” and “the second end region” or not. Examiner interprets it to refer to both.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the ratio”, “the sum”, “the flow cross sections”, and “the flow cross section” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the at least one second inflow or outflow space”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “second inflow or outflow space” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second liquid access point” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the inflow or outflow spaces”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as either the “first” or “second” “inflow or outflow spaces” as recited in Claim 1, or not.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the end region”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the first” or “second end region” as recited in Claim 1, or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said at least one end region”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the first” or “second end region” as recited in Claim 1, or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the inner diameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the sum” and “the flow cross sections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the flow cross section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is not necessarily inherent.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first and second end cap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first and second end cap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the at least one second inflow or outflow space”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “second inflow or outflow space” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the ratio”, “the sum”, “the flow cross sections” and “the flow cross section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the at least one second inflow or outflow space”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “second inflow or outflow space” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the ratio”, “the sum”, “the flow cross sections” and “the flow cross section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the sum” and “the flow cross sections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they are not necessarily inherent.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the sum” and “the flow cross sections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they are not necessarily inherent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Donato et al., (“Donato”, US 2020/0147287).
Regarding Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 16 & 18, Donato discloses a hollow fiber membrane filter, (See Abstract), comprising a cylindrical housing that extends along a central axis in the longitudinal direction, with a housing interior space, a first end region with a first end, and a second end region with a second end, (Cylindrical Housing with interior and two ends, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0100] & [0037]), a plurality of hollow fiber membranes, (Hollow fiber membranes in housing, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0100] & [0037]), having an inner diameter of 150 to 190 pm, (See Abstract and See paragraph [0130]; Donato anticipates the claimed range from 168 to 175 microns), and a wall thickness of 25 to 38 pm, (See Abstract and See paragraph [0130]; Donato anticipates the claimed range from 25 to 26 microns), the hollow fiber membranes being arranged in the cylindrical housing, (Hollow fiber membranes in housing, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0130]), and embedded in a sealing manner in the first end region and in the second end region of the cylindrical housing in a respective potting compound in a potting zone, (See paragraph [0100]; either end of the membrane is encapsulated/sealed by potting material), and the ends of the hollow fiber membranes being open, so that the lumina the hollow fiber membranes form a first flow space, (See paragraph [0100]; second flow space formed by fiber cavities), and the housing interior space surrounding the hollow fiber membranes forms a second flow space, (See paragraph [0100]; first flow space surrounding membranes on outside), first inflow or outflow spaces, each adjoining with their front end the first and second end of the cylindrical housing and the potting zone, which are in fluid communication with the first flow space of the hollow fiber membrane filter, (See paragraph [0100]; the flow space above and below said potting material which is in flow communication with said fiber cavities), and each of which has first liquid access points for conducting liquid into/out of the first inflow or outflow spaces, (See paragraph [0100]; blood inlet and outlet, to cause blood to enter the fiber membranes and flow therethrough), second inflow or outflow spaces surrounding the first and the second end region of the cylindrical housing which are in fluid communication with the second flow region and each of which has second liquid ports for conducting liquid into/out of the second inflow or outflow space, (See paragraph [0100]; “the dialysate inlet and dialysate outlet are designed to allow dialysate to flow into an interior of the dialyzer, bathing the exterior surfaces of the fibers…dialysate flowing on the outside of the membranes”), a respective seal that separates the first inflow or outflow spaces from the second inflow or outflow spaces, (See paragraph [0100] & [0002]), passage openings in the end regions of the cylindrical housing that form a fluid connection between the second inflow and/or outflow spaces and the second flow space, (See paragraph [0100]; caps include space between caps and bundle and inlet/outlet and membrane lumina), wherein that the aspect ratio of the actual effective length of the hollow fiber membranes and the inner diameter of the cylindrical housing is 8 to 12, (See Abstract and paragraph [0130]; “effective length (L) within the hemodialyzer within the range of 207-287 mm” and See paragraph [0015] & [0136]; “a housing with an inner diameter…within the range of 31-35 mm”, resulting in a ratio of 5.91 to 9.25, overlapping/anticipating the claimed range from 8 to 9.25).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1 wherein the membrane surface area of the hollow fiber membrane filter is 1.2 to 2 m2, (See Abstract and paragraph [0130]; Donato anticipates the claimed range from 1.64 to 1.73 m2).
Claim 3: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1 wherein the effective length of the hollow fiber membranes is 270 to 320 mm, (See Abstract and paragraph [0130]; “effective length (L) within the hemodialyzer within the range of 207-287 mm”; Donato anticipates/overlaps the claimed range at 270 to 287 mm).
Claim 4: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein the inner diameter of the cylindrical housing is 25 to 35 mm, (See paragraph [0015] & [0136]; “a housing with an inner diameter…within the range of 31-35 mm”; anticipating/overlapping the claimed range from 31 to 35 mm).
Claim 5: The hollow fiber membrane filter (100) as set forth in claim 1 wherein the packing density of the hollow fiber membranes is 50 to 70%, (See Abstract and See paragraph [0130]; “a packing density within the range of 57.5-60.0%, anticipating the claimed range at those values).
Claim 6: The hollow fiber membrane filter (100) as set forth in claim 1, wherein the hollow fiber membranes have a wave-like shape, wherein the amplitude of the wave-like shape of the hollow fiber membranes is 0.1 to 0.5 mm, (See paragraph [0158]; “an amplitude in the range of from 0.1 to 0.5 mm”), and the wavelength of the wave-like shape of the hollow fiber membranes is 5 to 10 mm, (See paragraph [0158]; “a wavelength in the range of from 6 to 9 mm”, anticipating the claimed range at those values).
Claim 7: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein, in the end regions of the cylindrical housing, the ratio of the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings to the flow cross section of the at least one second inflow or outflow space lies in the range of 0.5:1 to 7:1, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0130], etc; selecting an inner diameter of 168 microns for the hollow fibers, 25 microns for the wall thickness, and 31 mm for the inner wall housing and 60% for packing densities, the overall interior space of the housing was calculated using pi*r2, which was pi*(31/2)2 = 754.4 mm2, a packing density of 60% would yield an overall cross-sectional area of the membranes as 452.6 mm2, calculating the cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber membrane as 0.0292 mm2, and dividing the ratio of 452.6 by 0.292 yields 15,500 membranes total. Then, taking the interior opening cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber would be 0.0221 mm2, and multiplying by 15500 to get the overall cross-sectional opening area of 343.4 mm2. This results in a ratio of 343.4 mm2: (754.4 mm2 – 343.4 mm2) or 0.84:1, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
Claim 8: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 7, wherein, in the end regions of the cylindrical housing, the inflow or outflow spaces, starting from the second liquid access point to the central axis of the cylindrical housing, form a rotationally symmetrical circumferential space, (Arrows of blood entering/exiting ports at either end/endcap and cross-sectional view demonstrates circumferential view of membranes, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0100]).
Claim 9: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein the passage openings are arranged on isolated and/or opposite sections or circumferentially on the end region of the cylindrical housing, (See Figure 1, See Abstract, See paragraph [0130], either ends of hollow fibers are at opposite ends of the housing).
Claim 11: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings is 10 to 350 mm2, See Abstract, See paragraph [0130], etc; selecting an inner diameter of 168 microns for the hollow fibers, 25 microns for the wall thickness, and 31 mm for the inner wall housing and 60% for packing densities, the overall interior space of the housing was calculated using pi*r2, which was pi*(31/2)2 = 754.4 mm2, a packing density of 60% would yield an overall cross-sectional area of the membranes as 452.6 mm2, calculating the cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber membrane as 0.0292 mm2, and dividing the ratio of 452.6 by 0.292 yields 15,500 membranes total. Then, taking the interior opening cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber would be 0.0221 mm2, and multiplying by 15500 to get the overall cross-sectional opening area of 343.4 mm2, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
Claim 13: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first and the second inflow or outflow space in the first end region of the cylindrical housing and the first and the second inflow or outflow space in the second end region of the cylindrical housing are respectively enclosed by a first and a second end cap, (See paragraph [0100]; either end of the dialyzer has an end cap surrounding any spaces at either end).
Claim 16: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, wherein the ratio of the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings to the flow cross section of the at least one second inflow or outflow space lies in the range of 0.75:1 to 5:1, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0130], etc; selecting an inner diameter of 168 microns for the hollow fibers, 25 microns for the wall thickness, and 31 mm for the inner wall housing and 60% for packing densities, the overall interior space of the housing was calculated using pi*r2, which was pi*(31/2)2 = 754.4 mm2, a packing density of 60% would yield an overall cross-sectional area of the membranes as 452.6 mm2, calculating the cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber membrane, pi*(175 micron diameter/2)2 as 0.0314 mm2, and dividing the ratio of 452.6 by 0.0314 yields 14,414 membranes total. Then, taking the interior opening cross-sectional area of each hollow fiber would be 0.024 mm2, and multiplying by 14,414 to get the overall cross-sectional opening area of 346.5 mm2. This results in a ratio of 346.5 mm2: (754.4 mm2 – 346.5 mm2) or 0.84:1, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
Claim 18: The hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 8, wherein the rotationally symmetrical circumferential space is an annular gap, (Gaps shown in cross-sectional view of membranes versus cylindrical housing which will form at either end as well, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0100]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donato et al., (“Donato”, US 2020/0147287), in view of Buck et al., (“Buck”, US 2015/0165106).
Regarding Claim 10, Donato discloses he hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein said at least one end region, and optionally said second end region, is divided into a proximal end region, a distal end region, and a transition region disposed between said proximal and distal end regions, wherein one end of the distal end regions of the first and/or second end region corresponds to the respective end of the cylindrical housing, and the distal end region has an inner diameter at least 2% larger than the inner diameter of the proximal end region.
Buck discloses wherein said at least one end region, and optionally said second end region, is divided into a proximal end region, a distal end region, and a transition region disposed between said proximal and distal end regions, wherein one end of the distal end regions of the first and/or second end region corresponds to the respective end of the cylindrical housing, and the distal end region has an inner diameter at least 2% larger than the inner diameter of the proximal end region, (End portion of Housing is widest at edge, has a transitional narrowing portion, and a narrowest portion where it meets the midbody of the housing, See Figure 4, B diameter is 49.6 mm and midbody diameter is 38 mm, and 49.6 is more than 2% larger than 38, See paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein said at least one end region, and optionally said second end region, is divided into a proximal end region, a distal end region, and a transition region disposed between said proximal and distal end regions, wherein one end of the distal end regions of the first and/or second end region corresponds to the respective end of the cylindrical housing, and the distal end region has an inner diameter at least 2% larger than the inner diameter of the proximal end region as in Buck in order to provide “optimized construction” and “optimized performance”, (See paragraphs [0006] & [0007], Buck).
Regarding Claim 12, Donato discloses the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the flow cross section of the second inflow or outflow spaces is 20 to 50 mm2.
Buck discloses wherein the flow cross section of the second inflow or outflow spaces is 20 to 50 mm2, (See paragraph [0040], Buck; diameter of the inlet for the end cap is 3.7 mm, which has a cross-sectional area of pi*(3.7)2 = 43 mm2, anticipating the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the flow cross section of the second inflow or outflow spaces is 20 to 50 mm2 as in Buck in order to provide “optimized construction” and “optimized performance”, (See paragraphs [0006] & [0007], Buck).
Claim(s) 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donato et al., (“Donato”, US 2020/0147287), in view of Oshida et al., (“Oshida”, US 5,552,047).
Regarding Claim 14, Donato discloses the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second end cap adjoin an annular outer circumferential projection on the first end and on the second end region of the cylindrical housing in a positive, liquid-tight manner.
Oshida discloses wherein the first and the second end cap adjoin an annular outer circumferential projection on the first end and on the second end region of the cylindrical housing in a positive, liquid-tight manner, (Caps 9/10 adjoin housing 2 at its external annular/circumferential edge at either side, See Figure 1-3, See column 4, lines 34-42, lines 57-67, column 7, lines 106, lines 16-20, Oshida).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the first and the second end cap adjoin an annular outer circumferential projection on the first end and on the second end region of the cylindrical housing in a positive, liquid-tight manner as in Oshida to “prevent any blood leakage between the cap and the housing after sterilization even when some improperly located hollow filaments or fine foreign particles are present”, (See column 1, lines 57-62, Oshida).
Regarding Claim 15, Donato discloses the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second end cap positively adjoin the first end and the second end, respectively, of the cylindrical housing, particularly in a liquid-tight manner, along an inner circumferential circular line.
Oshida discloses wherein the first and the second end cap positively adjoin the first end and the second end, respectively, of the cylindrical housing, particularly in a liquid-tight manner, along an inner circumferential circular line, (Caps 9/10 adjoin housing 2 at its external annular/circumferential edge at either side, See Figure 1-3, See column 4, lines 34-42, lines 57-67, column 7, lines 106, lines 16-20, Oshida).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the first and the second end cap positively adjoin the first end and the second end, respectively, of the cylindrical housing, particularly in a liquid-tight manner, along an inner circumferential circular line as in Oshida to “prevent any blood leakage between the cap and the housing after sterilization even when some improperly located hollow filaments or fine foreign particles are present”, (See column 1, lines 57-62, Oshida).
Claim(s) 17, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donato et al., (“Donato”, US 2020/0147287), in view of Kugelmann et al., (“Kugelmann”, US 2008/0145926).
Regarding Claim 17, Donato discloses the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the ratio of the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings to the flow cross section of the at least one second inflow or outflow space lies in the range of 1:1 to 3:1.
Kugelmann discloses wherein the ratio of the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings to the flow cross section of the at least one second inflow or outflow space lies in the range of 1:1 to 3:1, (See paragraph [0008], [0031], & [0073]; The inside diameter of an individual hollow fiber is selected at 250 microns, the diameter of the overall hollow fiber bundle is 34 mm and 11,000 total hollow fiber membranes are selected. Since there are 12 fibers per mm2, and 11,000 membranes, the total cross-sectional area is 11,000 / 12 or 916.7 mm2. The cross-sectional area of an individual hollow fiber is pi*(250/2/1000 (microns/mm))2 = 0.049 mm2, and multiplied by 11,000 would result in a total cross-sectional area of the hollow fiber openings as 539.7 mm2 and the resultant ratio is 539.7 : (916.7 – 539.7) or 1.43:1, making obivous the claimed range at that value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the ratio of the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings to the flow cross section of the at least one second inflow or outflow space lies in the range of 1:1 to 3:1 as in Kugelmann in order to achieve “a particularly favorable mass transfer”, (See paragraph [0008], Kugelmann), and “results in a correspondingly higher pressure in the hollow fiber membranes and leads to an increase of the pressure difference across the hollow fiber membranes and thus to an increase of the convective exchange”, (See paragraph [0025], Kugelmann).
Regarding Claim 19, Donato disclose the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 15 to 200 mm2.
Kugelmann discloses wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 15 to 200 mm2, (See paragraph [0008], [0031], & [0073]; The inside diameter of the hollow fiber is selected at 100 microns, and the outside diameter is selected at 250 microns. The number of hollow fibers is selected at 11,000. The cross-sectional area of the lumina is pi*(100 microns/2/1000 (microns/mm))2 = 0.00785 mm2 which means multiplied by 11000 is a total area of 86.35 mm2, which anticipates the claimed range at this value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 15 to 200 mm2 as in Kugelmann in order to achieve “a particularly favorable mass transfer”, (See paragraph [0008], Kugelmann), and “results in a correspondingly higher pressure in the hollow fiber membranes and leads to an increase of the pressure difference across the hollow fiber membranes and thus to an increase of the convective exchange”, (See paragraph [0025], Kugelmann).
Regarding Claim 20, Donato disclose the hollow fiber membrane filter as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 20 to 110 mm2.
Kugelmann discloses wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 20 to 110 mm2, (See paragraph [0008], [0031], & [0073]; The inside diameter of the hollow fiber is selected at 100 microns, and the outside diameter is selected at 250 microns. The number of hollow fibers is selected at 11,000. The cross-sectional area of the lumina is pi*(100 microns/2/1000 (microns/mm))2 = 0.00785 mm2 which means multiplied by 11000 is a total area of 86.35 mm2, which anticipates the claimed range at this value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hollow fiber membrane filter of Donato by incorporating wherein the sum of the flow cross sections of all passage openings 20 to 110 mm2 as in Kugelmann in order to achieve “a particularly favorable mass transfer”, (See paragraph [0008], Kugelmann), and “results in a correspondingly higher pressure in the hollow fiber membranes and leads to an increase of the pressure difference across the hollow fiber membranes and thus to an increase of the convective exchange”, (See paragraph [0025], Kugelmann).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779