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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is between 30% and 80%, and the coverage rate in cases where quorum quenching microorganism coexist also range from 30% to 80% which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Amended claims 1, 7 and 11 recite that “a coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymers and the quorum quenching microorganisms on a surface of the membrane filter is 80% or less”. However, specification clearly teaches that “The coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is between 30% and 80%, and the coverage rate in cases where quorum quenching microorganism coexist also range from 30% to 80%” in paragraph [0072]. The coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is between 30% and 80% does not include 30% or 80%. Furthermore, specification teaches clearly that “If the coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer and quorum quenching microorganism on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is less than 30%, the phenomenon of quorum sensing cannot be effectively inhibited” in paragraph [0074] and “If the coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is less than 30%, the quorum quenching microorganisms are not sufficiently attached to effectively inhibit the quorum sensing phenomenon” in paragraph [0075]. Hence, the coverage rate of the hydrophilic polymer on the surface of the membrane filter for water and wastewater treatment is between 30% and 80%, and the coverage rate where quorum quenching microorganism coexist also range from 30% to 80% which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
JK
7/8/26
Prosecution Insights