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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/569,731 application filed on December 13, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-9 and 12 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on April 28, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-15 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. However, claim 12 properly depends on claim 1 and is now grouped and examined with Group I, which corrects the April 14, 2026 restriction requirement.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gilbert et al. (WO2020173762, Gilbert)(IDS of 12-28-2023; also published as US20220161198, which is referenced below).
Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. The analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 12, Gilbert discloses a crossflow filter device 17 for filtering a pressurised feed liquid (Abstract, [0048]-[0055], Figs. 1-11, in particular Figs. 2, 5 & 6) wherein:
the crossflow filter device comprises: a filter membrane 4;
a flow channel 10 for the pressurised feed liquid which extends in a path over a retentate surface of the membrane such that the direction of flow in the channel is tangential to the retentate surface, and a filtrate derived from the feed liquid passes through the membrane leaving retentate liquid in the flow channel ([0005], [0006], [0011]-[0017], [0051]); and
a collection chamber for the filtrate formed on an opposite, filtrate surface of the membrane ([0007], [0011], [0012]);
the crossflow filter device further comprises a sealed housing having a retentate side 1 and a filtrate side 2 which enclose therebetween the flow channel 10, the filter membrane 4 and the collection chamber ([0005], [0012], [0048], [0051]); and
the path for the flow channel winds back and forth over the retentate surface of the membrane producing plural hairpin bends ([0005], [0024], claim 10, Fig. 2), and the crossflow filter device further comprises flow channel guide walls 3 provided at an inner surface of the retentate side of the housing to define the path of the flow channel over the retentate surface of the membrane ([0013], [0016]),
characterised in that the respective guide wall defining the line of the inner radius of each hairpin bend is shaped such that retentate liquid flowing along that guide wall has to turn through at least 270° to complete the hairpin bend (Figs. 2, 5 and 6).
The figures show hairpin like flow bends with a 360° turn of the liquid flow and retentate between inlet 7 and outlet 8.
Alternatively, Gilbert discloses the claimed invention except wherein the cross flow filter device is characterised in that the respective guide wall defining the line of the inner radius of each hairpin bend is shaped such that retentate liquid flowing along that guide wall has to turn through at least 270° to complete the hairpin bend.
The full shape of Gilbert’s guide walls is not clear, but it appears that the guide walls are shaped to turn the liquid through at least 180° to complete the hairpin bend. An obstruction in the flow would allow additional turning. Gilbert also mentions that the back and forth creates eddies and turbulence to break up the linear flow which improves filtration efficiency by forcing all the feed liquid to pass over a large area of the membrane ([0024]).
Thus, at the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to attempt to increase the creation of eddies and turbulence by maximizing the turns of the retentate liquid flowing along the guide wall such that it has to turn through at least 270° or even turn through about 360° or more, to complete the hairpin bend by creating obstructions or defined flow path shapes, including polygonal shapes that facilitate liquid flow turning, with appropriate inner radii, exit points and such that would facilitate this endeavor as well as an optimal flow path configuration of the filtration device, to thereby increase liquid turbulence and improve filtration efficiency.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The respective guide wall defining the line of the inner radius of each hairpin bend is shaped such that retentate liquid flowing along that guide wall has to turn through about 360° to complete the hairpin bend (claim 1 analysis); Claim 3: In the crossflow filter device, in the plane of the membrane, and as between successive hairpin bends: the distance between the exit point of the line of the inner radius of one hairpin bend to the entry point of the line of the inner radius of the next hairpin bend is no more than twice the minimum width of the flow channel measured transversely to the flow direction of the retentate liquid (claim 1 analysis, where this spacing is an obvious matter of engineering choice based on routine experimentation and optimization); Claim 4: The line of the inner radius of each hairpin bend is substantially polygonal, having an alternating series of corners and straights, and preferably wherein the line of the inner radius of each hairpin bend substantially follows the a square or a rectangle perimeter line (claim 1 analysis; Figs 2 and 5); Claim 5: The flow channel has a width, measured transversely to the flow direction of the retentate liquid in the plane of the filter membrane, over the length of the flow channel such that the ratio of the minimum width to the maximum width is greater than 0.5 (Claim 1 analysis; Figs 2 and 5); Claim 6: The flow channel guide walls are resiliently deformable, thereby deforming and sealingly engaging with the filter membrane to form a fluid tight seal therewith ([0016]); Claim 7: The flow channel guide walls are formed by a resiliently deformable gasket such that the flow channel guide walls also sealingly engage with the inner surface of the retentate side of the housing ([0013], [0016]-[0020], where Gilbert mentions a fluid tight seal, and where a gasket is merely a type of seal such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a traditional gasket for an effective seal); Claim 8: The crossflow filter device further comprises plural interconnecting members 16 which extend outside the path of the flow channel to join the inner surface of the retentate side of the housing to an inner surface of the filtrate side of the housing and thereby strengthen the housing ([0058], [0065], Fig. 5);
wherein the gasket has respective locating eyes through which the interconnecting members pass to locate the gasket relative to the inner surface of the retentate side of the housing, the locating eyes surrounding the respective interconnecting members on all sides in the plane of the membrane (Fig. 5); Claim 9: The interconnecting members are respectively located at the centres of the hairpin bends, such that the locating eyes are formed by the guide walls which define the inner radii of the hairpin bends (Figs. 2 and 5); and Claim 12: The crossflow filter device further comprises a foraminous support body located within the collection chamber, the support body providing mechanical support to the membrane while allowing relatively unimpeded passage therethrough of the filtrate ([0020], [0023], [0027], [0030], [0034]).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights