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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the process and product claims are coextensive in scope with respect to the claimed membrane structure and are directed to the same inventive concept; claim 21 is specifically directed to a method that requires the use of the fluid transfer membrane according to claim 1; and the manufacturing process, the membrane, and the method of use are thus technically interrelated and share a common inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the process can make other products such as those that have larger pore diameters. Additionally the membrane can be made by a different method such as laser etching or fully electrolytic etching (no irradiation required); the membrane can be used in a different method such as filtering; and the inventions as claimed operate differently in mode, design, effect and function. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 9 recites “at least one of the opposite large faces ‘ in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “at least one of opposite large faces” in line 2.
Claim 10 recites “at least one of the opposite large faces” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “at least one of opposite large faces” in line 2.
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 1-5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoux et al. (FR 3108983, see machine translated version).
Regarding claims 1-4, Marcoux et al. teach a fluid transfer membrane (paragraphs [0011], [0020]) comprising a porous n-doped silicon wall including pores extending entirely across a thickness of the porous n-doped silicon wall (paragraphs [0011], [0026], [0048], [0050]), each of the pores having a diameter of between 5 nm and 5 µm, and preferably between 20 nm and 500 nm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than or equal to 400 nm (paragraphs [0026], [0052]) and the fluid transfer membrane having a transmittance of at least 1% or greater than 10% in the emission wavelength or in each emission wavelength which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or equal to 5% to any radiation whose wavelength is between 5 µm and 25 µm (paragraphs [0017], [0058], [0070]).
Marcoux et al. do not disclose an aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 20. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in aspect ratio involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the aspect ratio of Marcoux et al. in order to allow diffusion of medium though the pores and narrow enough to block the passage of microorganisms (Marcoux et al., paragraphs [0054], [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Marcoux et al. do not disclose wherein a surface density of the pores is between 0.1 µm-2 and 5.0 µm-2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in surface density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the surface density of the pores of Marcoux et al. in order to allow diffusion of nutrient medium between two faces of the support while retaining microorganisms on one face of the support (Marcoux et al., paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Marcoux et al. teach wherein first and second faces are flat and parallel to each other which reads on Applicant’s claimed an angle between opposite large faces of the fluid transfer membrane is less than or equal to 5° (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Marcoux et al. do not teach wherein at least one of the opposite large faces has a surface roughness which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 20 nm (entire document).
Regarding claim 10, Marcoux et al. teach wherein at least one portion of an area of at least one of the opposite large faces is free of any coating (entire document).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoux et al. (FR 3108983, see machine translated version) in view of Scholten et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0281102).
Marcoux et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Marcoux et al. fail to teach wherein the membrane further comprises a support superimposed on the porous n-doped silicon wall, the support including at least one recess passing through the support entirely across a thickness of the support wherein at least one of the pores opens into the recess. However, Scholten et al. teach a membrane comprising a porous n-doped silicone wall including pores (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0012], page 2, paragraph [0030]), further comprising a support superimposed on the pores n-dope silicon wall (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0012], page 2, paragraph [0031]), the support including at least one recess passing through the support entirely across a thickness of the support (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0012], page 2, paragraph [0031]), wherein at least one of the pores opens into the recess (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0012], page 2, paragraph [0031]), wherein a length of the recess, measured in a median plane of the membrane is in the range of several micrometers to several hundred micrometers (page 3, paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the support of Scholten et al. on the silicon wall of Marcoux et al. in order to provide a usable reservoir for drugs or active substances (Scholten et al., page 5, paragraph [0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights