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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buhr et al. US 2001/0037975.
Claims 1 and 18, Buhr teaches a filtration system comprising: a filter assembly comprising: a filter holder base (58) having an aperture (64) extending therethrough and a cavity formed at a first end thereof, a backing (46) disposed in the cavity of the filter holder base, a filter membrane (42) positioned over the backing, a seal assembly (44, 48) coupled to the filter holder base and sealingly engaging a surface of the filter membrane, and a cover (56) having an aperture (60) extending therethrough and disposed over the seal assembly and at least a portion of the filter holder base, wherein the cover is secured to the filter holder base to substantially close the cavity (fig. 2).
Claim 15, Buhr teaches a method of filtering a fluid comprising: receiving a fluid into an aperture (60) extending through a cover (56) of a filter holder, filtering the fluid through a filter membrane (42) disposed on a backing (46) located within a cavity of a filter holder base, sealingly engaging a surface of the filter membrane via a seal assembly (44, 48) of the filter holder, wherein the cover is disposed over the seal assembly and at least a portion of the filter holder base and the cover is secured to the filter holder base to substantially close the cavity and outputting the filtered fluid through an aperture (64) extending through the filter holder base (fig. 2).
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10 and 19, Buhr further teaches the seal assembly comprising an o-ring (44) to sealingly engage the surface of the filter membrane (fig. 2); the seal assembly further comprises an o-ring compression ring (48) shaped to form an interlocking interface with the filter holder base (fig. 2, par 25); the filtration system is capable of filtering a fluid at a fluid pressure range of 1000-5500 psi or higher (par 20); the filter membrane is a silver membrane (par 21); the backing is a disk shaped metal frit (par 22); and securing the cover by rotating the cover with respect to the filter holder base to threadedly connect the cover to the filter holder base and reducing rotation of the filter membrane during rotation of the cover via a compression ring (48) of the seal assembly (fig. 2, par 25).
Claims 16-17, Buhr further teaches the fluid is received at a fluid pressure range of 1000-5500 psi or higher (par 20); and directing the fluid through the filter membrane through the backing, and through a funnel shaped portion of the cavity into the aperture extending through the filter holder base (fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhr et al. US 2001/0037975.
Claim 4, Buhr teaches the o-ring compression ring comprises a key way or a key with engages with a complementary key way or key at the first end of the filter holder base (par 25) but does not specifically teach one or more projections configured to be received into one or more grooves to reduce rotation of the o-ring with respect to the filter holder base. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that a key and key way will either inherently or at least have been obvious to comprise a projection and a groove. Such a configuration will inherently reduce rotation of the o-ring with respect to the filter holder base as the key and key way would hinder rotation.
Claim 9, Buhr does not teach the specific size of the filter membrane but does teach that the system size may vary depending upon the circumstances involved in a particular desired application (par 20). The recitation of the dimensions of the membrane is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim 12, Buhr further teaches a first coupling element at the apertures of the filter holder base and the cover (fig. 2) but does not specifically teach first and second conduits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide conduits as a well-known way to bring fluid to a system.
Claim 20, Buhr does not explicitly teach replacing the membrane without replacing the backing. Buhr does teach the filter membrane provides the filtering of the fluid and the backing supports the filter membrane and thus the filter membrane will inherently collect debris while the backing does not provide any filtering of the fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace only the membrane as the backing would not be clogged with debris and replacing a clogged membrane is very common in the art.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhr et al. US 2001/0037975 in view of Miller US 4,944,876.
Claim 5, Buhr does not teach the recited stepped profile.
Miller teaches a filtration system comprising a filter assembly comprising: a filter holder base (14, 26) having an aperture extending therethrough and a cavity formed at a first end thereof, a backing (42) disposed in the cavity of the filter holder base, a filter membrane (38, 40) positioned over the backing, wherein at least a portion of the cavity is defined by a stepped profile along an inner diameter of the filter holder base, wherein the backing is supported by a first surface of the stepped profile and the filter membrane is supported by a second surface of the stepped profile (fig. 1). The recitation of the stepped profile is a well-known type of support for a backing and a membrane, as demonstrated by Miller, and would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6, Miller further teaches the filter membrane is disposed between the second surface of the stepped profile and one side of the filter membrane and the seal assembly (34) on an opposite side of the filter membrane (fig. 1).
Claim 11, Buhr does not teach the specific size of the backing but does teach that the system size may vary depending upon the circumstances involved in a particular desired application (par 20). The recitation of the dimensions of the backing is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claims 13, Buhr teaches a filter holder base (58) having an aperture (64) extending therethrough and a cavity formed at a first end thereof, the filter holder base is shaped to receive and support a backing on a first surface thereof and to receive and support a filter membrane, a seal assembly (44, 48) configured to be coupled to the filter holder base and to sealingly engage a surface of a filter membrane when the membrane is in the cavity, and a cover (56) having an aperture (60) extending therethrough and configured to be disposed over the seal assembly and at least a portion of the filter holder base, wherein the cover is secured to the filter holder base to substantially close the cavity (fig. 2). Buhr does not teach a second surface to support a filter membrane.
Miller teaches a filtration system comprising a filter assembly comprising: a filter holder base (14, 26) having an aperture extending therethrough and a cavity formed at a first end thereof, a backing (42) disposed in the cavity of the filter holder base, a filter membrane (38, 40) positioned over the backing, wherein at least a portion of the cavity is defined by a stepped profile along an inner diameter of the filter holder base, wherein the backing is supported by a first surface of the stepped profile and the filter membrane is supported by a second surface of the stepped profile (fig. 1). The recitation of the stepped profile is a well-known type of support for a backing and a membrane, as demonstrated by Miller, and would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14, Buhr further teaches the seal assembly comprises an o-ring (44) to sealingly engage the surface of the filter membrane and an o-ring compression ring (48) shaped to form an interlocking interface with the filter holder base (fig. 2, par 25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights