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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 8/17/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 and 11-18 in the reply filed on 6/5/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims of group use the membrane group I. This is not found persuasive because, as pointed out in the restriction requirement, the membrane has other materially different uses, and the two inventions require separate searches and considerations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is 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.
The “an acclimating agent” raises antecedent basis issues because that term is already introduced in claim 1. Suggest ‘a second acclimating agent’ instead.
“A constructed microbial membrane” is unconnected to claim 1, and the claim can be interpreted as having a microbial membrane reactor different from that of claim 1 at this step.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN115639333A.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference has a 102(a1) date, published less than one year prior to the application’s priority date. However, it has a different inventive entity, and therefore, is a prior art without a 102(b1) exception.
Claims are drafted in the product-by-process form.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Therefore, the construction method steps recited in claim 1-3, 6, 14, inorganic salts in claims 11-13, flow rates in claim 17 and temperature in claim 18 are all unpatentable process elements.
Structural elements are shown in Figure 1 of CN. The reference teaches: “Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of ammonia nitrogen detection in Example 1. In the figure, 1 is a river, lake or sewage treatment plant water sample, 2 is a culture solution, 3 is a three-way valve ①, 4 is a microbial culture system, 5 is a peristaltic pump ①, 6 is the aeration pump, 7 is the three-way valve ②, 8 is the three-way valve ③, 9 is the peristaltic pump ②, 10 is the microbial film hanging device – spiral polyurethane tube, 11 is the constant temperature water bath, 12 is the dissolved oxygen measuring instrument, 13 is a signal workstation.[Sic]”
The term, “plug-flow” only represents what kind of flow is there through the reactor, which is an intended use limitation.
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al., (US 2014/0326617)
PNG
media_image2.png
537
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This Liu reference also appears to belong to the applicant, and was submitted in an IDS by the applicant. Figure 1 is copied herein, which teaches the structural details in the claimed invention. Paragraph [0094] gives detailed description of Fig. 1. Membrane 8 is tubular and is made of glass – see [0032], [0033] and example 1.
As pointed out in rejection 1, all the other elements recited in the claims are directed at the process of making, and not patentable in a product claim.
“Plug-flow” is only an intended use as shown in rejection 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights