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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “three dimensional” in line 1 of said claim should read “three-dimensional”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Graphene oxide flakes” should read “graphene oxide flakes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first letter in the genus, “methanobacterium” is not capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an open parenthesis on claim number 4, however, the formatting is not consistent with the previous claims or the subsequent claims of the instant application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the genus and species of the microorganisms should be italicized. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are 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. Moreover, regarding claim 9, the limitation “nanoparticle all said bead” in lines 2-3 is not clear because it is unclear as to what applicant is attempting to claim or convey with said limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 are recites the limitation "the center" in lines 3 and 2 of said claims, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about” in claims 16-20 and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”).
Regarding claim 1, Ruiz discloses a modular solid nano-bioreactor comprising walls that form a three dimensional housing (filter or collection device 20, col. 4, lines 3-4, Fig. 3), said housing comprising an interior chamber (filtering chambering 3, col. 4, line 5),
at least one inlet passing through at least one of said walls to said interior chamber (fluid inlet 1, col. 4, lines 6, Fig. 3) and at least one outlet passing through at least one of said walls to said interior chamber (outlet 2, col. 4, line 4, Fig. 3), said housing's chamber comprising a three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide seeded with a microorganism and/or a cell, said microorganism and/or cell being embedded in and/or attached to the surface of said graphene oxide (GO may be used as a scaffold for cell surface attachment and proliferation, col. 8, lines 8-9; GO presents a preferred surface for the attachment of cells, graphene oxide matrices can be applied in the sampling and collection of microorganisms, col. 7, lines 35-37). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, wherein graphene oxide is selected from Graphene oxide flakes, graphene oxide powder, graphene oxide hydrogels and/or solvgels, graphene oxide liquid solution (Ruiz discloses GO which may be flakes, a film, a solution, a suspension, col. 4, lines 9-10). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, wherein: a) said microorganism is selected from the group consisting of bacteria, fungi, protist, archaea and mixtures thereof and/or b) said cell is selected from the group consisting of eukaryotic cells, prokaryotic cells and mixtures thereof (Ruiz discloses microorganisms or cells which may be selected from microbes, bacteria, fungi, yeast, algae, or combinations thereof, col 4, lines 16-18). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Therefore, Ruiz meets the limitation of claims 1-3.
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.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”).
Regarding claim 4, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 3. Further, Ruiz discloses filamentous fungi, yeasts and mixtures thereof (yeast, col. 4, line 18); said protist are selected from the group consisting of algae, amoeba, euglena and mixtures thereof (Ruiz discloses algae, col. 6, line 65); and e) said eukaryotic cells are selected from the group consisting of mammalian cells, insect cells, plant cells and mixtures thereof (Ruiz discloses testing of the role of GO film on mammalian cell attachment and proliferation was performed, col. 13, lines 50-51).
Ruiz does not explicitly teach archaea selected from the group consisting of methanobacterium formicicum, Methanobrevibacter smittii, Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Halobacterium halobium, Halobacterium salinarum, Methanococcus voltae, and mixtures thereof.
Ruiz discloses the claimed invention except for archaea selected from the group consisting of methanobacterium formicicum, Methanobrevibacter smittii, Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Halobacterium halobium, Halobacterium salinarum, Methanococcus voltae,and mixtures thereof. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include archaea selected from the group consisting of methanobacterium formicicum, Methanobrevibacter smittii, Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Halobacterium halobium, Halobacterium salinarum, Methanococcus voltae, and mixtures thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 4. Further, Ruiz discloses gram negative bacteria (E.coli bacterial cells, col. 10, line 56). Additionally, Ruiz discloses mammalian cells are human cells (mammalian colorectal adenocarcinoma HT-29 cells, col. 13, lines 53-54).
Ruiz does not explicitly teach gram positive bacteria are selected from the group consisting of Gordonia sihwensis, Nocardioides luteus, Bacillus linchenifornis, Dietzia psychralcaliphila and mixtures thereof nor does Ruiz explicitly teach filamentous fungi are selected from the group consisting of Hormoconis resinae, Fusarium fujikuroi, Byssochlamys nivea, Apergillus versicolor, Byssochlamys sp BYSSO1, Lecanicillium sp Lec01, and mixtures thereof, and said yeasts are selected from the group consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Yarrowia lipolytica, Meyerozyma guilliernondii, Candida tropicalis, Candida albicans, Debaryomyces,Rhodoturulamucilaginosa, Rhodoturula toruloides and mixtures thereof; c) said algae are selected from the group consisting of Clamydomonas, volvox, Spirogyra, chlorella and mixtures thereof.
Ruiz discloses the claimed invention except for Gordonia sihwensis, Nocardioides luteus, Bacillus linchenifornis, Dietzia psychralcaliphila and mixtures thereof nor does Ruiz explicitly teach filamentous fungi are selected from the group consisting of Hormoconis resinae, Fusarium fujikuroi, Byssochlamys nivea, Apergillus versicolor, Byssochlamys sp BYSSO1, Lecanicillium sp Lec01, and mixtures thereof, and said yeasts are selected from the group consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Yarrowia lipolytica, Meyerozyma guilliernondii, Candida tropicalis, Candida albicans, Debaryomyces,Rhodoturulamucilaginosa, Rhodoturula toruloides and mixtures thereof; c) said algae are selected from the group consisting of Clamydomonas, volvox, Spirogyra, chlorella and mixtures thereof. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include Gordonia sihwensis, Nocardioides luteus, Bacillus linchenifornis, Dietzia psychralcaliphila and mixtures thereof nor does Ruiz explicitly teach filamentous fungi are selected from the group consisting of Hormoconis resinae, Fusarium fujikuroi, Byssochlamys nivea, Apergillus versicolor, Byssochlamys sp BYSSO1, Lecanicillium sp Lec01, and mixtures thereof, and said yeasts are selected from the group consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Yarrowia lipolytica, Meyerozyma guilliernondii, Candida tropicalis, Candida albicans, Debaryomyces,Rhodoturulamucilaginosa, Rhodoturula toruloides and mixtures thereof; c) said algae are selected from the group consisting of Clamydomonas, volvox, Spirogyra, chlorella and mixtures thereof since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ruiz also teaches a three-dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, also discussed above. Ruiz does not explicitly teach a three-dimensional structure comprising porous graphene oxide, said three-dimensional structure comprising porous graphene oxide not comprising a support scaffold. It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
However, another embodiment of discloses a porous filtering membrane 10 comprising a layer of GO (col. 6, lines 17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the device of Ruiz and further include a three-dimensional structure comprising porous graphene oxide, said three-dimensional structure comprising porous graphene oxide not comprising a support scaffold as taught by another embodiment of Ruiz, since Ruiz teaches GO may serve as a coating for conventional tissue culture matrices, as culture media additives, and as free-standing film matrices or porous gel-like structures for cell and tissue growth. GO has also shown promise in the biomedical field as it promotes the attachment of drugs and antimicrobial agents and enhances the encapsulation of cells. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal (sterilization) of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids (col. 3, lines 13-21).
Regarding claim 7, Ruiz discloses three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide is selected from the group consisting of: a) a three dimensional structure comprising a graphene oxide cartridge, graphene oxide gel and/or graphene oxide mesh (GO may serve as a coating for conventional tissue culture matrices, as culture media additives, and as free-standing film matrices or porous gel-like structures for cell and tissue growth, col. 3, lines 13-16); and/or b) a three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide comprising a support scaffold comprising an exterior surface and optionally pores having walls said pores passing through said support scaffold, said graphene oxide being attached to at least a portion of said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, said support scaffold comprising pores having walls said pores passing through said support scaffold. It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Ruiz teaches wherein said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide is selected from the group consisting of: a) a said three dimensional structure comprising a graphene oxide cartridge, and/or graphene oxide mesh; and/or b) a three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide comprising a support scaffold comprising an exterior surface and optionally pores having walls said pores passing through said support scaffold, said graphene oxide being attached to at least a portion of said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, said support scaffold comprising pores having walls said pores passing through said support scaffold, said graphene oxide being attached to the walls of said pores and said support scaffold's exterior surface (GO may be used as a scaffold for cell surface attachment and proliferation, col. 8,lines 8-9). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Ruiz teaches wherein said support scaffold comprises a graphene oxide mesh, a bead, a fiber, a tube, a nanotube, and/or nanoparticle all said bead, a fiber, a tube, a nanotube, and nanoparticle having a graphene oxide attached thereto (it is shown that GO materials can be functionalized with antimicrobial agents, including silver nanoparticles, col. 12, lines 5-7). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 24, Ruiz discloses (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration (abstract). Ruiz also discloses a nano-bioreactor also discussed above in claim 1. Further, the filter or collection device of Ruiz is capable of permitting one or more liquid nutrients (col. 2, lines 41-42) and retaining the fluid (col. 4, lines 8-9). Ruiz discloses the claimed invention except for a retention time of about one minute to twenty-four hours. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a retention time of about one minute to twenty-four hours since it was known in the art that the time claimed by applicant would be obvious to a skilled person in the art in order to allow for the production of the desired product. MPEP §2144.03 A-E.
Regarding claim 25, Ruiz discloses wherein said fermentation product from is separated from said fermentation product and by product mixture by a process comprising centrifugation, filtration, and/or solvent extraction (filtering fluids comprising a filter or collection device; col. 2, lines 41-42). It is also noted that the term “and/or” in the claim is being interpreted by the examiner to indicate that one of the clauses needs to be met by the reference in order to anticipate or render obvious instant claim limitation.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”).
Regarding claim 10, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ruiz disclsoes an outlet of the device, also discussed above. Ruiz does not explicitly disclose a compression spacer located between an inlet and the three-dimensional structure.
However, Zoican-Loebick discloses a structure disposed on the top and bottom of filter elements 4, shown in Fig. 2, which corresponds to the claimed compression spacer, where Fig. 2 of Zoican-Loebick depicts said supports are oriented between an inlet 37 and an outlet 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to take the device of Ruiz and further include a compression spacer located between an inlet and the three-dimensional structure as taught by Zoican-Loebick, since Zoican-Loebick suggests each filter element 41 contains or holds in place a sorbent bed 43 by the supports on either side of the each filter element (col. 12, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 11, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 10. Ruiz does not explicitly disclose a compression spacer located between the inlet and the three-dimensional structure.
However, Zoican-Loebick discloses a structure disposed on the top and bottom of filter elements 4, shown in Fig. 2, which corresponds to the claimed compression spacer, where Fig. 2 of Zoican-Loebick depicts said supports are oriented between an inlet 37 and an outlet 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to take the device of Ruiz and further include a compression spacer located between an inlet and the three-dimensional structure as taught by Zoican-Loebick, since Zoican-Loebick suggests each filter element 41 contains or holds in place a sorbent bed 43 by the supports on either side of the each filter element (col. 12, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 12, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 1. Ruiz does not explicitly disclose a first compression spacer located between the inlet of the three-dimensional structure and a second compression spacer located between an outlet and the three-dimensional structure.
However, Zoican-Loebick discloses a structure disposed on the top and bottom of filter elements 4, shown in Fig. 2, which corresponds to the claimed compression spacer, where Fig. 2 of Zoican-Loebick depicts said supports are oriented between an inlet 37 and an outlet 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to take the device of Ruiz and further include a compression spacer located between an inlet and the three-dimensional structure and an outlet and the three-dimensional structure as taught by Zoican-Loebick, since Zoican-Loebick suggests each filter element 41 contains or holds in place a sorbent bed 43 by the supports on either side of the each filter element (col. 12, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 14, Ruiz discloses the invention discussed above in claim 1. Ruiz does not disclose one or more spacers being a spring, a ring, or a compression spacer.
However, Zoican-Loebick discloses structures disposed on the top and bottom of filter elements 4, shown in Fig. 2, which corresponds to the claimed compression spacers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to take the device of Ruiz and further include one or more spacers being a spring, a ring, or a compression spacer as taught by Zoican-Loebick, since since Zoican-Loebick suggests each filter element 41 contains or holds in place a sorbent bed 43 by the supports on either side of the each filter element (col. 12, lines 29-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15-23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest three or more compression spacers, at least one compression spacer being located between said inlet and said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide and at least one compression spacer located between said outlet and said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide and the remaining compression spacer being located within said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest three or more compression spacers, at least one compression spacer being located between said inlet and said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide and at least one compression spacer located between said outlet and said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide and the remaining compression spacer being located within said three dimensional structure comprising graphene oxide.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest one or more compression spacers each said spacer comprising: a.) an exterior surface and an interior surface said interior surface defining an interior void comprising a top surface area and a bottom surface area; b.) a plurality of stems protruding from said interior surface, said stems covering a portion of said void's top surface area and a bottom surface area, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest one or more compression spacers each said spacer comprising: a.) an exterior surface and an interior surface said interior surface defining an interior void comprising a top surface area and a bottom surface area; b.) a plurality of stems protruding from said interior surface, said stems covering a portion of said void's top surface area and a bottom surface area.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein said stems cover from about 15% to about 50% of said void's top surface area, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest wherein said stems cover from about 15% to about 50% of said void's top surface area.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 17, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest stems cover from about 15% to about 25% of said void's top surface area and bottom surface area and said stems protrude from about 60% to about 100% to the center of said void, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest stems cover from about 15% to about 25% of said void's top surface area and bottom surface area and said stems protrude from about 60% to about 100% to the center of said void.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 60% to about 85% to the center of said void, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 60% to about 85% to the center of said void.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 65% to about 80% to the center of said void, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 65% to about 80% to the center of said void.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 20, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 72% to about 78% to the center of said void, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest stems protrude from about 72% to about 78% to the center of said void.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a compression spacer comprises a first group of stems and a second group of stems, said first group of stems being longer than said second group of stems, each group of stems comprising at least three stems, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest spacer comprises a first group of stems and a second group of stems, said first group of stems being longer than said second group of stems, each group of stems comprising at least three stems.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a compression spacer comprises at least six stems said stems having equal lengths or essentially equal lengths, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest a compression spacer comprises at least six stems said stems having equal lengths or essentially equal lengths.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 23, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein said stems are branched, where the limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is Ruiz et al. (US 9,403,112 B2-hereinafter “Ruiz”) and further in Zoican-Loebick et al. (US 11,015,128 B1-hereinafter “Zoican-Loebick”). Ruiz teaches a system and device for filtering fluids using graphene oxide (GO) is provided. GO-based filters may be used for the efficient removal of microorganisms from organic and aqueous liquids and may be used to prevent fuel biodeterioration. Zoican-Loebick teach a process of removing at least one metal contaminant, such as copper, from a fluid hydrocarbon, for example, crude oil or a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as an aviation fuel. The process involves contacting the metal-contaminated fluid hydrocarbon with a sorbent selected from graphene oxide or a functionalized graphene oxide. However, Ruiz and Zoican-Loebick do not teach or fairly suggest wherein said stems are branched.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/LENORA A ABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights