DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 17 and 18 are new.
This Action is Made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the figures show the claimed subject matter because figures 6A shows a planar filter before being wound around the container. Although the applicant is correct that figures 6A shows a planar filter, it does not show the holes shifted in the non-continuous section. There are not shifted through holes in the planar filter shown in figure 6A, the hole are only shifted a the connection point when wound around to form a cylindrical filter. The applicant further points to paragraph 0143 of the specification to show support for a planar filter with shifted through holes. This argument is not persuasive because it is referring the formation of a “cylindrical shape” not of a planar shape. The applicant further refers to figures that show a planar shape with shifted through holes. These arguments are not persuasive because, although the figures do not show the cylindrical shape, the specification clearly states that they are an “enlarged schematic” of the tubular filter of claim 1, not separate planar embodiments.
It is further noted that the applicant has not addressed the status of the application as a “continuation”
The applicant argues that Schulte does not teach the newly added limitation of “the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction”. This argument is persuasive, however it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a second column of through holes to the continuous section of Schulte such that the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction. It would have been obvious to add a second column of through holes to the continuous portion because it is a simple change in shape and simple duplication of parts without changing the function of the device or unexpected results.
The applicant argues that neighed Kamba nor Schulte provide any reaching, suggestion, or motivation to create a filter having the specific duel-region structure recited in the independent claims. This argument is not persuasive because the claims are not limited to a “duel” region structure. The claims requires a continuous portion and a non-continuous portion, they do not exclude additional portions or regions from the filter base.
The applicant argues that the recited structure is not an “arbitrary design choice, but it achieves specific technical results that are described in detail in the specification”. Specifically the applicant argues that the continuous portion with the square gride increase the open area percentage of the filter. This argument is not persuasive because square grides are well known in the art, see for example Kamba fig. 1 A and Schulte figs. 3 A and 3B. The applicant further argues that the non-continuous portion creates additional connection points that allow the filter to be cut more easily. This argument is not persuasive because Schulte teaches the non-continuous portion with additional connection points. The applicant argues that there is support for “functional benefit” because the stress in the non-continuous portion is greater than in the continuous portion. This argument is not persuasive both because the prior art teaches non-continuous portions and because the examples referred to in the specification are directed to cylindrical filters, not planar filters as currently claimed.
The applicant argues that the combination is not obvious because MPEP 2144.04 only applies where the change in form or shape produces non “new of unexpected results”. This argument is not persuasive because there are no new or unexpected results. The continuous and non-continuous portions are known in the prior art and the results show in the specification apply to cylindrical filters, not planar filters. There is no evidence provided that the same stresses would occur in a planar filter shape as in a cylindrical filer shape.
The Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the approved terminal disclaimer.
Continuation
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: a “filtration filter having a planar shape…having the second set of through holes shifted relative to the first set of through holes” (see claim 1) and a “filter base having a planar shape…having a second plurality of through holes that are offset relative to each other”. The original disclosure does not provide support for a planar filter with offset through holes stating that it is “required that the filtration filter 1A have a tubular shape” (see para. 0058 USPN 2021/0077925) and the original disclosure teaches that the offset/shifted holes are formed when the ends of the filter sheet are joined (see para. 0103).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a filtration filter having a planar shape…the second set of through hole shifted relative to the first set”, “a filter base having a planar shape…through holes that are offset relative to each other…” and “a continuous portion having a first set of through holes… and a non-continuous portion having a second set of through holes…the second set of through holes shifted relative to the first set of through holes… must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The figures only show through holes of the non-continuous section (ref. # 14) shifted with respect to each other not with the first set of through holes. Further there are no figures of a planar shape with through hole shifted, although figures 2-4, for example, appear planar they are “enlarged schematic” views of the tubular filter of figure 1, not figures of a planar filter.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte et al (USPN 6,283,302).
Regarding Claim 1:
Schulte teaches the filtration filter having a planar shape, the filtration filter comprising: a filter base that defines a plurality of through holes arranged in a square grid array, wherein the filter base includes a continuous portion having a first set of through holes (openings 42 in first column) of the plurality of through holes and a non-continuous portion having a second set of through holes of the plurality of through holes, the continuous portion extending in a first direction and extending in a second direction along at least a first portion of the filtration filter orthogonal to the first direction (extending at least the length and width of the through holes), the non-continuous portion having the second set of through holes (openings 42 in second column) shifted relative to the first set of through holes of the continuous portion (see fig. 3 annotated below), the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction (extending at least the length of the through holes) (see col. 5 lines 32-35, fig. 3B annotated below).
Schulte does not teach wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction. Schulte teaches the first set of through holes are aligned with each other in the first direction (vertically aligned along the filter) (see fig. 3B below).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second column of through holes to the continuous section, thereby having the first set of through holes in the continuous portion aligned with each other in both the first and second direction because it is a simple change in shape and duplication of parts (duplication of aligned through holes), without changing the function of the deice or unexpected results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further Schulte teaches that the openings within the filter can be in a variety of shapes (see col. 5 lines 33-40, figs. 3A-3G).
Regarding Claim 9:
Schulte teaches filtration filter comprising: a filter base having a planar shape, the filter base including: a continuous portion having a first plurality of through holes arranged in a square grid array (openings 42 in first column), the continuous portion extending in a first direction and extending in a second direction along at least a first portion of the filter base orthogonal to the first direction, and a non-continuous portion having a second plurality of through holes (openings 42 in second and third columns) that are offset relative to each other, the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction (extending at least the length of the opening) (see col. 5 lines 32-35, fig. 3B annotated below). The claims do not require that the first plurality of through holes not be offset relative to the second plurality of through holes.
Schulte does not teach wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction. Schulte teaches the first set of through holes are aligned with each other in the first direction (vertically aligned along the filter) (see fig. 3B below).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second column of through holes to the continuous section, thereby having the first set of through holes in the continuous portion aligned with each other in both the first and second direction because it is a simple change in shape and duplication of parts (duplication of aligned through holes), without changing the function of the deice or unexpected results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further Schulte teaches that the openings within the filter can be in a variety of shapes (see col. 5 lines 33-40, figs. 3A-3G).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamba et al (US 2016/0041075) in view of Schulte et al (USPN 6,283,302).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kamba teaches the filtration filter having a planar shape (see fig. 1), the filtration filter comprising: a filter base (cavity arrangement structure 1) (see fig. 1, para. 0040) that defines a plurality of through holes (square cavities 11) arranged in a square grid array (see para. 0040), wherein the filter base includes a continuous portion having a first set of through holes of the plurality of through holes, the continuous portion extending in a first direction (x) and extending in a second direction (y) along at least a first portion of the filtration filter orthogonal to the first direction (the grid extends along the x and y axis) (see fig. 1).
Kamba does not teach a non-continuous portion having a second set of through holes of the plurality of through holes, the non-continuous portion having the second set of through holes shifted relative to the first set of through holes of the continuous portion, the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction. Kamba further teaches that the through holes (cavities) can be arranged in different ways such as periodically or aperiodically (see para. 0039) and further in different period structures (see para. 0039-0040).
Schulte teaches a filtration filter having a planar shape, comprising a continuous portion having a first set of through holes (openings 42 in first column) and a non-continuous portion having a second set of through holes (openings 42 in second column) of the plurality of through holes, the non-continuous portion having the second set of through holes shifted relative to the first set of through holes of the continuous portion, the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction (extending at least the length of the opening) (see col. 5 lines 32-35, fig. 3B annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamba and Schulte are analogous inventions in the art of planar filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the columns of through holes (cavities) of Kamba such that they are shifted with respect to the adjacent columns (as disclosed by Schulte), thereby forming a non-continuous section with a second set of through holes shifted relative to the first, as taught by Schulte, because it is a simple change in shape without changing the function of the device, with an expectation of success. Further Kamba teaches that different hole (cavity) arrangements can be used (see Kamba para. 0039). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Schulte does not teach wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction. Schulte teaches the first set of through holes are aligned with each other in the first direction (vertically aligned along the filter) (see fig. 3B above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second column of through holes to the continuous section, thereby having the first set of through holes in the continuous portion aligned with each other in both the first and second direction because it is a simple change in shape and duplication of parts (duplication of aligned through holes), without changing the function of the deice or unexpected results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further Schulte teaches that the openings within the filter can be in a variety of shapes (see col. 5 lines 33-40, figs. 3A-3G).
Regarding Claim 2:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein the non-continuous portion extends in the second direction along at least a second portion of the filtration filter (extends at least the width of the opening) (see Schulte fig. 3B above).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein the filter base includes: a first filter base extending in the first direction in the non-continuous portion, the first filter base having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; a plurality of second filter bases connected to the first side of the first filter base at respective first connection portions, the plurality of second filter bases extending in the second direction; and a plurality of third filter bases connected to the second side of the first filter base at respective second connection portions, the plurality of third filter bases extending in the second direction, wherein the respective plurality of first connection portions and the respective plurality of second connection portions (connection portions are where the first filter base portion meets the second or third filter base portions) are shifted relative to each other in the first direction (see Schulte fig. 3, annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 3, wherein the respective first connection portions are each disposed between a corresponding adjacent two of the respective second connection portions (see Schulte fig. 3, above).
Regarding Claim 5:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 3, wherein a first width of the first filter base is equal to a second width of a part of the continuous portion of the filter base (all portions of the filter base extending between the openings are the same width) (see Schulte fig. 3, above).
Regarding Claim 6:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein the filter base comprises at least one of a metal and a metal oxide as a main component thereof (see Kamba para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein a thickness of the filter base is one-tenth to ten times a size of a through hole of the plurality of through holes (Thickness T of 0.5 to size of opening D of 1.8 is 1:3.6) (see Kamba para. 0088).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kamba, as modified, teaches filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein a main surface (interpreted as surface inside of cavities) of the filter base configured to contact a fluid containing filtration objects (first target substance) (see Kamba para. 0060) has a surface roughness less than a size of the filtration objects (the first target substance passes though the cavities, therefore the surface roughness is less than the size of the filtration object or it would block the filtration object within the cavities) (see Kamba para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 9:
Kamba teaches the filtration filter comprising: a filter base having a planar shape (cavity arrangement structure 1) (see fig. 1, para. 0040), the filter base including: a continuous portion having a first plurality of through holes (square cavities 11) arranged in a square grid array (see para. 0040), the continuous portion extending in a first direction and extending in a second direction along at least a first portion of the filter base orthogonal to the first direction.
Kamba does not teach a non-continuous portion having a second plurality of through holes that are offset relative to each other, the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction.
Schulte teaches filtration filter comprising: a filter base having a planar shape, the filter base including: a continuous portion having a first plurality of through holes arranged in a square grid array (openings 42 in first column), the continuous portion extending in a first direction and extending in a second direction along at least a first portion of the filter base orthogonal to the first direction, and a non-continuous portion having a second plurality of through holes (openings 42 in second and third columns) that are offset relative to each other, the non-continuous portion extending in the first direction (extending at least the length of the opening) (see col. 5 lines 32-35, fig. 3B annotated below). The claims do not require that the first plurality of through holes not be offset relative to the second plurality of through holes.
Kamba and Schulte are analogous inventions in the art of planar filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the columns of through holes (cavities) of Kamba such that they are shifted with respect to the adjacent columns (as disclosed by Schulte), thereby forming a non-continuous section with a second plurality of through holes shifted relative to each other, as taught by Schulte, because it is a simple change in shape without changing the function of the device, with an expectation of success. Further Kamba teaches that different hole (cavity) arrangements can be used (see Kamba para. 0039). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Schulte does not teach wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are aligned with each other in both the first direction and the second direction. Schulte teaches the first set of through holes are aligned with each other in the first direction (vertically aligned along the filter) (see fig. 3B above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second column of through holes to the continuous section, thereby having the first set of through holes in the continuous portion aligned with each other in both the first and second direction because it is a simple change in shape and duplication of parts (duplication of aligned through holes), without changing the function of the deice or unexpected results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further Schulte teaches that the openings within the filter can be in a variety of shapes (see col. 5 lines 33-40, figs. 3A-3G).
Regarding Claim 10:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein the non-continuous portion extends in the second direction along at least a second portion of the filter base. (extends at least the width of the opening) (see Schulte fig. 3B above).
Regarding Claim 11:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein the filter base includes: a first filter base extending in the first direction in the non-continuous portion, the first filter base having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; a plurality of second filter bases connected to the first side of the first filter base at respective first connection portions, the plurality of second filter bases extending in the second direction; and a plurality of third filter bases connected to the second side of the first filter base at respective second connection portions, the plurality of third filter bases extending in the second direction, wherein the respective plurality of first connection portions and the respective plurality of second connection portions (connection portions are where the first filter base portion meets the second or third filter base portions) are shifted relative to each other in the first direction (see annotated figure of 3B provided with rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 12:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 11, wherein the respective first connection portions are each disposed between a corresponding adjacent two of the respective second connection portions (see Schulte, fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 13:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 11, wherein a first width of the first filter base is equal to a second width of a part of the continuous portion of the filter base (all portions of the filter base extending between the openings are the same width) (see Schulte fig. 3, above).
Regarding Claim 14:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein the filter base comprises at least one of a metal and a metal oxide as a main component thereof (see Kamba para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 15:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein a thickness of the filter base is one-tenth to ten times a size of a through hole of the plurality of through holes (Thickness T of 0.5 to size of opening D of 1.8 is 1:3.6) (see Kamba para. 0088).
Regarding Claim 16:
Kamba, as modified, teaches filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein a main surface (interpreted as surface inside of cavities) of the filter base configured to contact a fluid containing filtration objects (first target substance) (see Kamba para. 0060) has a surface roughness less than a size of the filtration objects (the first target substance passes though the cavities, therefore the surface roughness is less than the size of the filtration object or it would block the filtration object within the cavities) (see Kamba para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 17:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 1, wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are disposed at regular intervals in the first direction and the second direction (through holes are in a grid, therefore they are regular) (see Schulte fig. 3 B).
Regarding Claim 18:
Kamba, as modified, teaches the filtration filter according to Claim 9, wherein the first set of through holes in the continuous portion are disposed at regular intervals in the first direction and the second direction (through holes are in a grid, therefore they are regular) (see Schulte fig. 3 B).
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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights