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 without traverse of claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the US Provisional application 63/237,680.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024, 03/14/2024, 10/10/2025, and 05/11/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “adsorbent”, it will be interpreted, but not limited to: an insoluble porous matrix. {Prince, US20140048741A1, [0096]}
Regarding the term “ion exchange resin”, it will be interpreted, but not limited to: an insoluble matrix (or support structure) normally in the form of small beads fabricated from an organic polymer substrate. {Prince, US20140048741A1, [0097]}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1-28 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, they contain the trade names PrAOH, PrCh, and MB1/1h. Where trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, Purolite (the manufacture of the trade named products used in the claims) has described each of the previously mentioned terms, in general, as polystyrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene. Claims 2-14 and 16-28 are rejected due to their dependency on the above-mentioned claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of the possible adsorbents to be used in the filter; claims 10-14 then recite “the size of the polystyrene adsorbent …” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. If an adsorbent other than polystyrene was chosen from claim 1, then there would be no polystyrene adsorbent of claims 10-14. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on the above-mentioned claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the term “significantly homogenous” is unclear and indefinite to what is considered significant, as well as which properties are being accounted for regarding homogenous. While the applicant attempts to define this term in the specification paragraph 68, the term “significant” is further defined with another indefinite term of “substantially”. “Homogenous” is defined as a ratio of filter aid to bind, but does not define which properties of those components are equal regarding weight, density, or volume etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prince (US20140048741A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prince discloses a depth filter comprising; a) a sintered depth filter media {Abstract} comprising a thermally fused mixture {[0119]} of polyethylene binder, {[0107] regarding polymeric binder component particles consisting of polyethylene particulate materials} and b) one or more adsorbents {[0084]} selected from the group consisting of PrAOH, PrCH,MB1/1h, polystyrene adsorbent, poly(4-vinylbenzene) 2 percent cross-linked with divinylbenzene, poly(4-vinylpyridine-co-ethylvinylbenzene) 25 percent cross-linked with divinylbenzene. {[0122] regarding ion exchange resins consisting of polystyrene; Note [0096-0097]'s definitions of "adsorbent" and "ion exchange resin", wherein the ion exchange resins can be classified as adsorbents}
Regarding claim 2, Prince discloses that the depth filter media is significantly homogeneous. {[0160] regarding the homogenous blend of the filter mixture}
Regarding claim 5, Prince discloses wet-strength binder resins are specifically excluded. {[0107] regarding the ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene particulate materials}
Regarding claim 6, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:10 to about 10:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio; Note MPEP 2131.03 states, "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.”}
Regarding claim 7, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:5 to about 5:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio}
Regarding claim 8, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:2 to about 2:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio}
Regarding claim 10, Prince discloses the size of said polystyrene adsorbent is from about 10 micro m to about 120 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 11, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene adsorbent is from about 30 micro m to 100 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 12, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is from about 50 micro m to 80 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 13, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is from about 60 micro m to 70 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 14, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is about 63 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US20140048741A1) in view of Kato (US20180238842A1).
Regarding claim 3, Prince fails to disclose the depth filter is from about 1 mm- about 4 mm thick.
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the depth filter is from about 1 mm- about 4 mm thick. {[0055]} This thickness ranges allows for superior mechanical strength with less of a chance for pressure loss within the column. {[0055]}
Regarding claim(s) 3 and the following claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify thickness of the depth filter with the teachings of Kato because, both filters of Kato and Prince are made of ion exchange membranes with polyethylene components and used for chromatography filtration applications. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the thickness of Kato to the filter of Prince as Kato’s filter is designed and manufactured to work more efficiently regarding strength and lack of pressure loss {Kato, [0055]} in increased areas of pressure, specifically when the user wants to increase the chromatography pressure to increase the flow rate. {Kato, [0133]} Doing this would decrease the analysis time, saving the user time and costing less as less eluent would be consumed during the process. {Kato, [0133]}
Regarding claim 4, Prince fails to disclose the depth filter is from about 2 mm- about 3 mm thick.
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches the depth filter is from about 2 mm- about 3 mm thick. {[0055]} It would be obvious to implement this claimed thickness maintains mechanical strength and reduced likelihood for pressure loss. {[0055]}
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US20140048741A1).
Regarding claim 9, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is about 1:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio; Note MPEP 2144.05 states, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” and “In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934) (the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical)”; which similar in this instance regarding the claimed range 1:1 as the instant application does not show criticality to this ratio, and one of reasonable skill in the art would expect similar results from the claimed range vs. the prior art range.}
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US20140048741A1) in view of Hufen (US20130312605A1).
Regarding claim 15, Prince discloses a method of making a sintered depth filter media, {Abstract and [0022}} the method comprising mixing a polyethylene binder with an adsorbent {[0016] and [0044]} selected from the group consisting of PrAOH, PrCH, MB1/1h, polystyrene adsorbent, poly(4-vinylbenzene) 2 percent cross-linked with divinylbenzene, poly(4-vinylpyridine-co-ethylvinylbenzene) 25 percent cross-linked with divinylbenzene to make a mixture, {[0122] regarding ion exchange resins consisting of polystyrene; Note [0096-0097]'s definitions of "adsorbent" and "ion exchange resin", wherein the ion exchange resins can be classified as adsorbents} and heating the mixture. {[0046]}
Regarding claim 15, Prince fails to disclose spreading the mixture to a substantially uniform thickness, and the heating (taught by Prince) occurs at about 165 degrees centigrade for about 60 minutes.
Regarding claim 15, Hufen teaches spreading the mixture to a substantially uniform thickness, {[0041] regarding a flat panel shape} and the heating (taught by Prince) occurs at about 165 degrees centigrade for about 60 minutes. {[0042]} These sintering parameters allow for increased mechanical strength within the polymers of the media. {[0043]}
Regarding claim(s) 15 and the following dependent claims 16, and 20-28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating parameters of Prince with the parameters of Hufen because, both inventions involve sintering polyethylene and an adsorbent to create a filtration medium, and Prince does not disclose specific parameters for sintering, rather simply “a temperature sufficient to soften” {Prince, [0046]}. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the sintering parameters of Hufen to the method of Prince as the parameters taught by Hufen allow for the interface between the components to disappear and thus increase the mechanical strength of the polymer chains in the media. {Hufen, [0043]}
Regarding claim 16, Prince discloses the depth filter media is significantly homogeneous. {[0160] regarding the homogenous blend of the filter mixture}
Regarding claim 19, Prince discloses wet-strength binder resins are specifically excluded. {[0107] regarding the ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene particulate materials}
Regarding claim 20, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:10 to about 10:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio}
Regarding claim 21, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:5 to about 5:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio}
Regarding claim 22, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is from about 1:2 to about 2:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio}
Regarding claim 23, Prince discloses the ratio of polyethylene to adsorbent is about 1:1. {[0140] regarding the 3:2 polyethylene to anion exchange resin ratio; Note the instant application does not show the criticality to this range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results from both the claimed and the prior art range.}
Regarding claim 24, Prince discloses the size of said polystyrene adsorbent is from about 10 micro m to about 120 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 25, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene adsorbent is from about 30 micro m to 100 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 26, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is from about 50 micro m to 80 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 27, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is from about 60 micro m to 70 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Regarding claim 28, Prince discloses the size of the polystyrene absorbent is about 63 micro m in diameter. {[0115]}
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US20140048741A1) and Hufen (US20130312605A1), in view of Kato (US20180238842A1).
Regarding claim 17, Prince and Hufen fail to disclose or teach the depth filter is from about 1 mm-about 4 mm thick.
Regarding claim 17, Kato teaches the depth filter is from about 1 mm-about 4 mm thick. {[0055]} This thickness ranges allows for superior mechanical strength with less of a chance for pressure loss within the column. {[0055]}
Regarding claim(s) 17 and the following claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify thickness of the depth filter of Prince and Hufen with the teachings of Kato because, both filters are made of ion exchange membranes with polyethylene components and used for filtration applications. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the thickness of Kato, as Kato’s filter is designed and manufactured to work more efficiently regarding strength and lack of pressure loss in increased areas of pressure, specifically when the user wants to increase the chromatography pressure to increase the flow rate. {Kato, [0133]} Doing this would decrease the analysis time, saving the user time and costing less as less eluent would be consumed during the process. {Kato, [0133]}
Regarding claim 18, Prince and Hufen fail to disclose or teach the depth filter is from about 2 mm- about 3 mm thick.
Regarding claim 18, Kato teaches the depth filter is from about 2 mm- about 3 mm thick. {[0055]} It would be obvious to implement this claimed thickness maintains mechanical strength and reduced likelihood for pressure loss. {[0055]}
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bassett (CN101218009A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights