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 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, 2, 4 and 6–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Mol, US 4,340,470 in view of Yamamoto et al., WO 2017/141609 A11.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Van Mol teaches a screening element 16, which reads on the claimed “filter.” See Van Mol Fig 3, col. 2, ll. 26–31.
The screening element 16 is made of a screening material, which reads on the “filtering portion.” See Van Mol Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 26–31. The screening material has a top surface (from the perspective of Fig. 3) and a bottom surface. Id. The top surface reads on the “first main surface” and the bottom surface reads on the “second main surface opposite to the first main surface.” The screening material has interstices to allow fluid to pass through that pass from the top to the bottom surface. Id. The interstices read on the “plurality of through holes connecting the first main surface and the second main surface with each other.”
The screening material includes a curved edge wall 22 that is bent (“warped”) in a direction toward the bottom surface of the screening material. See Van Mol Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 47–52. The edge wall 22 reads on the “one or more curved portions warped in a direction toward…a side of the second main portion.”
The edge wall 22 is wrapped to the side of the bottom surface (the “second main surface”) in a vertical direction (the “third direction”).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Mol differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the screening element 16 comprising a reinforcement on the screening material, with the reinforcement including a plurality of first reinforcement members extending in a first direction and a plurality of second reinforcement members extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction when viewed from the side of the top surface (the “first main surface”) of the filter 16, with the vertical direction (the “third direction”) intersecting the first and second direction when viewed from the side of the top surface. Van Mol differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to a frame surrounding a periphery of the screen material (the “filtering portion”) and extending along an outer peripheral shape of the screen material.
But Van Mol teaches that the screening element 16 is made of the screening material and can be used to filter liquids. See Van Mol col. 1, ll. 6–10.
With this in mind, Yamamoto teaches a filter 2 that can be used for filtering liquid where the filter comprises a metal porous membrane 21 (analogous to the screening material of Van Mol) and a supporting base 22 for providing structural support to the metal porous membrane 21. See Yamamoto Fig. 2, p. 4. The supporting base 22 surrounds a periphery of the metal porous membrane 21 and extends along an outer peripheral shape of the metal porous membrane, as seen in Fig. 2. Also, the supporting base 22 comprises a gride-like support structure that supports the material of the metal porous membrane 21, as seen in Fig. 2. The grid-like structure has a plurality of reinforcement members that run top to bottom, from the perspective of Fig. 2 and a plurality of reinforcement members that extend from side to side, as seen in Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to attach the supporting base 22 of Yamamoto to the top or bottom surface of the screening material of Van Mol to provide structural support for the screening material.
With this modification, the grid-like support structure reads on the “reinforcement on the filtering portion.” The reinforcement members running from top to bottom read on the “plurality of first reinforcement members extending in a first direction.” The reinforcement members running from side to side read on the “plurality of second reinforcement members extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction when viewed from the side surface of the first main surface.” The vertical direction of Van Mol (the direction that the edge wall 22 extends) (the “third direction”) intersects the “first direction” and the “second direction,” as claimed. This is because the “third direction” is on the Z-axis, while the “first direction” is on the Y-axis and the “second direction” is on the X-axis. (Claim 1)
Also, the portion of the supporting base surrounding the periphery of the screen material reads on the “frame surrounding a periphery of the filtering portion and extending along an outer peripheral shape of the filtering portion.” (Claim 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
575
965
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches that a thickness of the grid-like structure of the supporting base 22 (the “reinforcement”) is greater than that of the metal porous membrane 21, as seen in Fig. 4. Therefore, when supporting base 22 is used to support the screen material of Van Mol, it would have been obvious for the grid-like structure of the supporting base 22 to be thicker than the screen material because Yamamoto illustrates the grid-like structure having a greater thickness than the metal porous membrane 21.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches that the reinforcement members running from top to bottom (the “plurality of first reinforcement members”) and the reinforcement members running from side to side (the “plurality of second reinforcement members”) are arranged at equal intervals, as seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 7–9, Van Mol teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Van Mol differs from claims 7–9 because it is silent as to an amount of warpage of the edge wall 22 (the “one or more curved portions”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach an amount of warpage of the edge wall being between 4x10-4 to 0.1 times an outer diameter of the screening element 16 (claim 7), between 4x10-3 to 0.1 times an outer diameter of the screening element 16 (claim 8) or 0.02 to 0.1 times an outer diameter of the screening element 16 (claim 9).
But the edge wall 22 is bent so that it has enough length to cover the entire base of inlet portion 18. See Van Mol Figs. 1, 3, col. 2, ll. 31–52. Also, the main portion 17 of the screening element 16 must have a sufficient size to extend across the housing 10 to be positioned to filter fluid moving through the housing. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal length of the edge wall 22 (“warpage”) relative to a diameter of the main portion 17 to ensure that the edge wall 22 has sufficient length to cover the entire base of the inlet portion 18 while the main portion 17 has sufficient size to extend across the housing 10. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 10, Van Mol teaches that screening material (the “filtering portion”) has a “flat portion” (main portion 17) where the top and bottom surfaces (the “first main surface” and the “second main surface”) are flat, as seen in Fig. 3. The main portion 17 is located in a center of the screening material 17, as seen in Fig. 3.
Also, the “one or more curved portions” is interpreted as including edge wall 22 (the “first” curved portion) and upper end portion 23 (the “second” curved portion). See Van Mol Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 47–57. The upper end portion 23 is a “curved portion” because it has a generally curved shape, as seen in Fig. 3. If not, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the upper end portion 23 to be curved because this would merely represent an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV, B. The main portion 17 is located between edge wall 22 and upper end portion 23 in a cross-sectional view of the screening element 16, as seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, Van Mol teaches that the edge wall 22 and upper end portion 23 (the “first and second curved portions”) are located at a part of an outer periphery of the screening element 16 (the “filter”), as seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 12, Van Mol teaches the limitations of claim 10, as explained above.
Van Mol differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to a frame surrounding a periphery of the screen material (the “filtering portion”) and extending along an outer peripheral shape of the screen material, wherein the frame includes a part of the main portion 17 (the “flat portion”) and parts of the edge wall 22 and upper end portion 23 (the “first and second curved portions.”
But Van Mol teaches that the screening element 16 is used to filter liquids. See Van Mol col. 1, ll. 6–10.
With this in mind, Yamamoto teaches a filter 2 that can be used for filtering liquid where the filter comprises a metal porous membrane 21 (analogous to the screen material of Van Mol) and a supporting base 22 for providing structural support to the metal porous membrane 21. See Yamamoto Fig. 2, p. 4. The supporting base 22 surrounds a periphery of the metal porous membrane 21 and extends along an outer peripheral shape of the metal porous membrane, as seen in Fig. 2. Also, the supporting base 22 comprises a gride-like support structure that supports the middle of the metal porous membrane 21, as seen in Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to use the supporting base 22 of Yamamoto to support the screen material of Van Mol to provide structural support for the screen material.
With this modification, the supporting base 22 reads on the “frame.” It would surround the periphery of the screen material of Van Mol and would extend along an outer peripheral shape of the screen material, as claimed, in the same way that the supporting base 22 surrounds the periphery of the metal porous membrane 21. Also, the supporting base would be included as part of the main portion 17 and as part of the edge wall 22 and upper end portion 23 of Van Mol, as claimed because the these portions 17, 22, 23 are formed of the screen material.
Regarding claims 13–15, Van Mol teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Note that for the purpose of claims 13–15, the bottom surface of the screen material of Van Mol reads on the “first main surface” and the top surface reads on the “second main surface.”
Van Mol differs from claims 13–15 because it is silent as to the dimensions of the screening element 16. Therefore, Van Mol fails to provide enough information to teach a ratio of an area occupied by the edge wall 22 (the “one or more curved portions”) in the bottom surface (the “first main surface”) is between 1 to 100% (claim 13), 5 to 50% (claim 14) or 15 to 50% (claim 15).
But the edge wall 22 is bent so that it has enough length to cover the entire base of inlet portion 18. See Van Mol Figs. 1, 3, col. 2, ll. 31–52. Also, the main portion 17 of the screening element 16 must have a sufficient size to extend across the housing 10 to be positioned to filter fluid moving through the housing. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal length of the edge wall 22 relative to a diameter of the main portion 17 to ensure that the edge wall 22 has sufficient length to cover the entire base of the inlet portion 18 while the main portion 17 has sufficient size to extend across the housing 10. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claims 16–18, Van Mol teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Van Mol differs from claim 16 because it is silent as to the material used to make the screening member 16 (the “filter”). Therefore, the reference fails to teach that the screening member 16 contains at least one of a metal and a metal oxide as a main component thereof. Van Mol also differs from claims 17 and 18 because it is silent as to the thickness of the screen material (the “filtering portion”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the screen material having a thickness of 0.5 to 20 µm (claim 17) or 1.0 to 3 µm (claim 18).
But Van Mol teaches that the screening member 16 can be used to filter various liquids in various situations. See Van Mol col. 1, ll. 11–15.
With this in mind, Yamamoto teaches a filter 2 used to filter various liquids, where the filter 2 comprises a metal porous membrane 21, which is a screen because it contains through holes 21c. See Yamamoto Fig. 2, p. 4. The metal porous membrane 21 is made of metal and has a thickness of 0.1 to 100 µm. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the metal porous membrane 21 of Yamamoto as the screen material of Van Mol because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 10–12 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that claim 1 requires that the “curved portion” is included in the “filtering portion” and that the “filtering portion” has “through holes.” See Applicant Rem. dated February 19, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6. The Applicant argues that this means that the “one or curved portions” is part of the “filtering portion” itself, arguing that the “one or more curved portions” also comprises the “through holes.” Id. It is argued that in Van Mol, the peripheral structure 21, 22 cannot read on the claimed “one or more curved portions” asserting that there is no clear disclosure of the peripheral structure 21, 22 having filtering holes. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require that the “one or more curved portions” comprises “through holes.” Instead, claim 1 requires that the “filtering portion” has a “plurality of through holes” (somewhere) that connect the first and second main surface with each other, with the “filtering portion” also including “one or more curved portions” (which may or may not have through holes). In Van Mol, the screening element 16 (the “filter”) is made of a screening material (the “filtering portion”) having interstices (the “through holes”) and the screening material includes three major portions: the lower end portion 21 including edge wall 22, the main portion 17 and the upper end portion 23. The peripheral structure 21, 22 of the screening material reads on the “one or more curved structures” at least because the edge wall 22 is curved. Therefore, because the screening material includes both the interstices and the peripheral structure 21, 22, Van Mol teaches a “filtering portion” having “a plurality of through holes” and “one or more curved portions”—even if the peripheral structure 21, 22 itself lacks interstices (not conceded).
Also, even if claim 1 was amended to require that the “one or more curved portions” includes the “through holes” Van Mol would read on the claim. This is because the peripheral structure 21, 22 is made from the screening material of the screening element 16, and the screening material comprises interstices. See Van Mol Fig. 3, col. 26–52.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 An original, untranslated copy of Yamamoto is in the record as the 27-page Foreign Reference dated November 19, 2025. A translation is in the record as the 10-page Foreign Reference dated November 19, 2025. This communication cites the original for figures and the translation for text.