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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12, 18, 23, 25-27, 31) in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 34 and 58-59 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Journal articles in paragraphs [00172], [00207]-[00208] and [00211]-[00213] are not considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 25-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 11, Line 2: first “one opening” should be corrected to “one first opening”;
second “one opening” should be corrected to “one second opening”.
-Claim 18, Line 1: “bear” should be corrected to “to contain”.
-Claim 25, Line 1: “provides>” should be corrected to “provides >”.
-Claim 26, Line 1: “8” should be corrected to “8L”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear whether the phrase "inscription of the perimeter within the opening or the interior of the container" requires that the perimeter must directly contact the inner surface of the opening or the interior of the container. For the purposes of examination, the phrase has been interpreted as only requiring that an impenetrable seal must be formed between the perimeter and an inner surface of the opening or interior of the container, and that the seal may be formed via indirect contact of the two components using at least one component such a gasket, an O-ring, a coating, or the like; especially because the applicant uses a gasket and a coating to form the seal (see instant specification, para [00222], the filter 200 may be coated with a thin layer of silicone, glue, plastic, or other coating that provides a smooth surface to form a seal with at least one gasket 270).
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.
Claims 1-10, 26-27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264414 A1 to University of Maryland (hereinafter "Maryland") in view of US 2014/0339177 A1 to Lane (hereinafter "Lane").
Regarding Claim 1, Maryland teaches a filter for filtering a liquid (para [0018]: The fluid filtration system includes a housing and a filter membrane; and para [0056]: a fluid (e.g., gas or liquid); The filter membrane is the filter), comprising:
a body having a first surface and defining at least one first opening configured receive a feed of a liquid (para [0024]: “the membrane has a first trench extending along an upstream surface of the filter membrane; and para [0065]: as shown in FIG. 4B, fluid "F" enters the upstream trench 111a formed along the upstream portion of the membrane 104. The fluid "F" continues through the channels 106 outward and away from the upstream trench 111a towards the first end portion 112a and/or the second end portions 112b into the cavities 206; and para [0056]: a fluid (e. g., gas or liquid; and Figs. 4A and 4B, which shows the membrane body 104, having trench 111a forming a first opening on its first surface which receives the feed of fluid "F", which may be liquid); a second surface defining at least one second opening configured to dispense the liquid as a filtrate into a container (para [0025]: the membrane has a second trench extending along a downstream surface of the filter membrane; and para [0066]: Once the fluid "F" enters the cavities 206, the fluid "F" continues downstream and subsequently enters a channel 106 of the filter 100 along the downstream portion of the membrane 104. Once the fluid "F" enters the channel 106, the fluid "F" continues inward along the channel 106. Where the channel 106 is connected to channels 106 located adjacent thereto, the fluid "F" may be guided through channels 106 located adjacent thereto toward and through the downstream trench 111b; and para [0056]: a fluid (e.g., gas or liquid; and Figs. 4A and 4B, which shows the membrane body 104 having trench 111b forming a second opening on its second surface which dispenses the filtered fluid "F", which may be liquid, into the container below; The term filtrate refers to the liquid fraction derived from a filtration process; see US 2016/0076198 A1 to Bio Ag Resources, Inc., para [0033]: The term "filtrate" is used herein in its ordinary sense as understood by those of skill in the art to refer to the liquid fraction derived from a filtering process), and a perimeter (para [0057]: Referring now to FIGS. 1A and 1B, illustrated is a wood block 102 removed from a portion of a tree (not shown) from which a wood membrane or membrane 104 may be extracted; and Fig. 1A, which shows that membrane 104 has a perimeter),
wherein the body comprises wood comprising tracheid tubes oriented in a first direction (para [0058]: The membrane 104 has a mesostructure (e.g., xylem, phloem, heartwood, or suitable combinations and/or portions thereof) which includes walls that extend therethrough to form xylem or channels 106. The channels 106 extend from a top or upstream portion to a bottom or downstream portion of the membrane 104 along an axis A-A; and Fig. 1B, which shows that the channels 106 are tubular; and Fig 4B, which shows that the channels are oriented horizontally in a direction of the axis A-A; Xylem comprises oriented tracheid tubes; see instant specification, para [00172]: Sapwood comprises xylem tissue, which, in turn, comprises tubes called tracheids that are oriented longitudinally along the length of trunks or branches of the plant), but does not teach the filter wherein the perimeter is configured to form an impenetrable seal with at least one of a third opening defined by the container or an interior of the container via inscription of the perimeter within the opening or the interior of the container.
Lane teaches beverage bottle system comprising a filter having a perimeter (para [0002]: The present invention relates generally to a beverage bottle system for filtering or treating a beverage, and more particularly, to a beverage bottle system for filtering or treating a beverage that includes a filter or treatment element mounted in the bottle; and para [0109]: The filter holder 46 is configured to contain a filter element 58; and Fig. 8, which shows the filter element 58 having a perimeter) wherein the perimeter is configured to form an impenetrable seal with at least one of a third opening defined by the container or an interior of the container via inscription of the perimeter within the opening or the interior of the container (para [0109]: a beverage improvement component retainer may be a filter holder 46 that may be positioned within the bottle body 22 and may define the boundary between the untreated beverage compartment, e.g., unfiltered beverage compartment 42 and the treated beverage compartment, e.g., filtered beverage compartment 54. The filter holder 46 is configured to contain a filter element 58; and para [0110]: A filter holder gasket 62 is configured to provide a fluid tight seal between the unfiltered beverage compartment 42 and the filtered beverage compartment 54. The filter holder gasket 62 of the illustrated embodiment is configured to provide a seal against a lower rim of the bottle body 22. A support flange or support element 64 within the filtered beverage compartment 54 presses the filter holder 46 into place at the lower end of the bottle body 22 and is configured to seal the filter holder gasket 62 against the lower rim of the bottle body 22; and Fig. 1, which shows that the perimeter of the filter 58 form a fluid tight seal against the interior of the bottle 22 using the filter holder 46 and filter holder gasket 62; A bottle is a container; It is reasonably understood that the seal is impenetrable if fluids such as liquids and gases cannot pass through; Further, the seal is formed via inscription of the perimeter within the interior of the container because the gasket 62 and the filter holder 46 allow the perimeter of the filter element 58 and the interior of the bottle body 22 to contact each other indirectly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the filter 58 in the beverage bottle system taught by Lane with the filter taught by Maryland because the bottle system allows for water to be filtered and dispensed for drinking, cooking, washing, etc. using the same apparatus (Lane, para [0241]: The user may drink the beverage from the nozzle of the filtering or treatment system or may dispense the beverage for cooking, washing, or the like; and para [0260], water or other liquids or beverages are filtered or treated within the bottle body and the filtered or treated liquids are drunk from the bottle through the nozzle or are dispensed from the bottle body), and further, Maryland states that water can be treated using the filter (Maryland, para [0055]: The 3D membrane may further be treated to incorporate nanomaterials, such as palladium nanoparticles (Pd NPs) for treating fluids (e.g., wastewater, runoff, etc.). When used for filtering, many distinct advantages result including, without limitation, allowing for fast water flow without significant, if any, agglomeration).
Regarding Claim 2, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1. Maryland further teaches the filter wherein the body comprises a rectangular, circular, spherical, or oval shape (para [0057]: Referring now to FIGS. 1A and 1B, illustrated is a wood block 102 removed from a portion of a tree (not shown) from which a wood membrane or membrane 104 may be extracted; and Figs. 1A and 4A, which shows that the filter membrane 104 is rectangular).
Regarding Claim 3, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1. Maryland further teaches the filter wherein the liquid is water (para [0055]: The 3D membrane may further be treated to incorporate nanomaterials, such as palladium nanoparticles (Pd NPs) for treating fluids (e.g., wastewater, runoff, etc.). When used for filtering, many distinct advantages result including, without limitation, allowing for fast water flow without significant, if any, agglomeration).
Regarding Claim 4, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1, but does not teach the filter wherein the at least one first opening includes a first plurality of openings, and wherein the at least one second opening includes a second plurality of openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of openings in the filter body by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter.
Regarding Claim 5, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 4. Maryland further teaches the filter wherein the first opening includes a first slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the second opening includes a second slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction (para [0058]: The channels 106 extend from a top or upstream portion to a bottom or downstream portion of the membrane 104 along an axis A-A; and para [0065]: The filter 100 additionally has an upstream and downstream trench 111 formed along the upstream and downstream portions of the membrane 104; and Fig. 4A, which shows that the trenches (openings) are configured as slots; and Fig 4B, which shows that the trench is perpendicular to the first direction along axis A-A), but does not teach the filter wherein the first plurality of openings includes a first plurality of slots arranged perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the second plurality of openings includes a second plurality of slots arranged perpendicular to the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of openings in the filter body by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter.
Regarding Claim 6, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 4. Maryland further teaches the filter wherein the first opening includes a first slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the second opening includes a second slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction (para [0058]: The channels 106 extend from a top or upstream portion to a bottom or downstream portion of the membrane 104 along an axis A-A; and para [0065], The filter 100 additionally has an upstream and downstream trench 111 formed along the upstream and downstream portions of the membrane 104; and Fig. 4A, which shows that the trenches (openings) are configured as slots; and Fig 4B, which shows that the trench is perpendicular to the first direction along axis A-A), but does not teach the filter wherein the first plurality of openings includes a first plurality of slots arranged parallel to the first direction, and wherein the second plurality of openings includes a second plurality of slots arranged parallel to the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of openings in the filter body by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the orientation of the slots relative to the first direction by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter.
Regarding Claim 7, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 4. Maryland further teaches the filter wherein the first opening includes a first slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the second opening includes a second slot arranged perpendicular to the first direction (para [0058], The channels 106 extend from a top or upstream portion to a bottom or downstream portion of the membrane 104 along an axis A-A; and para [0065], The filter 100 additionally has an upstream and downstream trench 111 formed along the upstream and downstream portions of the membrane 104; and Fig. 4A, which shows that the trenches (openings) are configured as slots (see Form 237, Bx. VIII); and Fig 4B, which shows that the trench is perpendicular to the first direction along axis A-A), but does not teach the filter wherein the first plurality of openings includes a first plurality of slots disposed at an angle between 0° and 90° relative to the first direction, and wherein the second plurality of openings includes a second plurality of slots disposed at an angled between 0° and 90° relative to the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of openings in the filter body by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the orientation of the slots relative to the first direction by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance and flow of liquid through the filter.
Regarding Claim 8, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 5, but does not teach the filter wherein each slot of the plurality of slots has a length between about 0.1 mm to about 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the length of the slots by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance of the filter.
Regarding Claim 9, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 5, but does not teach the filter wherein each slot of the plurality of slots is spaced apart by a width of about 0.1 mm to about 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the length of the slots by routine experimentation in order to improve the filtration performance of the filter.
Regarding Claim 10, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 5, but does not teach the filter further comprising a third plurality of openings disposed between the first plurality of slots and the second plurality of slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of slots in the filter body and their relative locations by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the filter.
Regarding Claim 26, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1, but does not teach the filter having a volumetric capacity between 8L and 100 L.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the volumetric capacity of the filter by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the filter.
Regarding Claim 27, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1, but does not teach the filter having a flow rate between about 1 L/h and 10 L/h.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate of liquid through the filter by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the filter.
Regarding Claim 31, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1. Maryland teaches a method for filtering a liquid (para [0004]: Existing challenges associated with the foregoing, as well as other challenges, are overcome by methods for altering fluids, such as filtering contaminants from a fluid, and also by systems and apparatuses that operate in accordance with these methods; Maryland does not explicitly use the word method to refer to how the liquid is filtered; however, the use of the apparatus comprises a method of filtering the liquid; and para [0056]: a fluid (e. g., gas or liquid), comprising the steps of: decanting the liquid onto the first surface (para [0065], as shown in FIG. 4B, fluid "F" enters the upstream trench 111a formed along the upstream portion of the membrane 104; In order for the liquid to reach the upstream trench, it must be decanted onto the first surface), wherein the contaminated liquid flows through the tracheid tubes from the at least one first opening defined by the first surface and into the at least one second opening defined by the second surface (para [0065]: as shown in FIG. 4B, fluid "F" enters the upstream trench 111a formed along the upstream portion of the membrane 104. The fluid "F" continues through the channels 106 outward and away from the upstream trench 111a towards the first end portion 112a and/or the second end portions 112b into the cavities 206; and para [0066]: Once the fluid "F" enters the cavities 206, the fluid "F" continues downstream and subsequently enters a channel 106 of the filter 100 along the downstream portion of the membrane 104. Once the fluid "F" enters the channel 106, the fluid "F" continues inward along the channel 106. Where the channel 106 is connected to channels 106 located adjacent thereto, the fluid "F" may be guided through channels 106 located adjacent thereto toward and through the downstream trench 111b; and para [0056]: a fluid (e.g., gas or liquid); and Figs. 4A and 4B, which shows the fluid, which may be a liquid flows from the first opening (trench 111a) on the upper surface, through the channels 106, and out of the second opening (trench 111b) on the lower surface); and collecting the liquid as a filtrate (para [0066]: Once the fluid "F" enters the cavities 206, the fluid "F" continues downstream and subsequently enters a channel 106 of the filter 100 along the downstream portion of the membrane 104. Once the fluid "F" enters the channel 106, the fluid "F" continues inward along the channel 106. Where the channel 106 is connected to channels 106 located adjacent thereto, the fluid "F" may be guided through channels 106 located adjacent thereto toward and through the downstream trench 111b; and para [0056]: a fluid (e. g., gas or liquid); and Figs. 4A and 4B, which shows the filtered fluid "F", which may be liquid, is collected into the container below the filter; The term filtrate refers to the liquid fraction derived from a filtration process; see US 2016/0076198 A1 to Bio Ag Resources, Inc., para [0033]: The term "filtrate" is used herein in its ordinary sense as understood by those of skill in the art to refer to the liquid fraction derived from a filtering process).
Lane further teaches the method wherein the filter of claim 1 is configured to form a continuous impenetrable seal with the interior of a container (para [0109]: a beverage improvement component retainer may be a filter holder 46 that may be positioned within the bottle body 22 and may define the boundary between the untreated beverage compartment, e.g., unfiltered beverage compartment 42 and the treated beverage compartment, e.g., filtered beverage compartment 54. The filter holder 46 is configured to contain a filter element 58; and para [0110]: A filter holder gasket 62 is configured to provide a fluid tight seal between the unfiltered beverage compartment 42 and the filtered beverage compartment 54. The filter holder gasket 62 of the illustrated embodiment is configured to provide a seal against a lower rim of the bottle body 22. A support flange or support element 64 within the filtered beverage compartment 54 presses the filter holder 46 into place at the lower end of the bottle body 22 and is configured to seal the filter holder gasket 62 against the lower rim of the bottle body 22; and Fig. 1, which shows that the perimeter of the filter 58 form a continuous, fluid light seal against the interior of the bottle 22 using the filter holder 46 and filter holder gasket 62; A bottle is a container; It is reasonably understood that the seal is impenetrable if fluids such as liquids and gases cannot pass through), but does not explicitly teaches the method comprising inserting the filter of claim 1 into at least one of the opening or the interior of the container thereby forming a continuous, impenetrable seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the filter of claim 1 into the interior of the container to form the continuous impenetrable seal because the seal prevents unfiltered water from contacting filtered water (Lane, para [0172]: A gasket 462 is provided for sealing the filter holder against the interior of the bottle so as to provide a fluid tight seal between the unfiltered beverage compartment and the filtered beverage compartment).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maryland in view of Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,788,849 to Hutter, Jr. et al. (hereinafter "Hutter").
Regarding Claim 11, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1. Maryland further teaches the filter comprising nanomaterials positioned in the tracheid tubes (para [0060]: The channels 106 may have nanomaterials 108 (e.g., nanomaterials such as nanoparticles, nanotubes, graphene, nanowires, etc.) (see FIG. 2B) disposed therein; and para [0062]: as fluid containing contaminants flows through the channels 106 of the membrane 104, the contaminants interact with the nanomaterial 108, thereby breaking down or otherwise changing the state of the contaminants), but does not teach the filter further comprising an adsorbent disposed in the at least one opening defined by the first surface or the at least one opening slot defined by the second surface.
Hutter teaches a filter system comprising a sorbent material (col 1, In 46-47: The invention is a filter system having filter material, e.g., absorbent material, to treat liquid flowing therethrough), the system comprising a container of an adsorbent material (col 3, In 31-36: Filter system 10 includes a housing 12, a removable rack 14 that holds a plurality of expanded gratings (grates) 16, and a plurality of containers 18 for holding absorbent materials used to remove contaminants from liquid flowing through the filter system; and col 5, In 2-6: Each container houses material that is capable of absorbing contaminants from liquid flowing through the filter system. When filled with absorbent material the containers resemble a pillow shape. For example, the containers may include a layer of activated charcoal, activated carbon; Activated carbon is an adsorbent; see instant claim 12, the adsorbent includes activated carbon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the activated carbon adsorbent material in the first and/or second opening in order to allow the liquid to contact the adsorbent upon entering and/or exiting the filter. Further, activated carbon is an adsorbent material for sorbing contaminants from waste water (see US 2004/0178149 A1 to Hernandez, para [0090]: Activated carbon is often considered.an adsorbent but may also be an absorbent. Activated carbon is used widely in the water and wastewater treatment industries and is well tested. As an example, organic compounds having nonpolar moieties collect as adsorbed compounds on the Surface of activated carbon particles), and the filter taught by Maryland is used in the waste water industry (Maryland, para [0055]: The 3D membrane may further be treated to incorporate nanomaterials, such as palladium nanoparticles (Pd NPs) for treating fluids (e.g., wastewater, runoff, etc.). When used for filtering, many distinct advantages result including, without limitation, allowing for fast water flow without significant, if any, agglomeration).
Regarding Claim 12, Maryland in view of Lane, and further in view of Hutter teaches the filter of claim 11. Hutter further teaches the filter wherein the adsorbent includes activated carbon (col 5, In 2-6: Each container houses material that is capable of absorbing contaminants from liquid flowing through the filter system. When filled with absorbent material the containers resemble a pillow shape. For example, the containers may include a layer of activated charcoal, activated carbon).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maryland in view of Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/198428 A1 to Resolute FP Canada, Inc. (hereinafter "Resolute").
Regarding Claim 23, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1, but does not teach the filter wherein the wood includes a sapwood. Resolute teaches a filter made of wood pulp (page 6, In 11-18: Disclosed herein are filter media comprising a fibrous material... the fibrous material comprises wood fibers. In some embodiments, the wood fibers can be provided in the form of a wood pulp or other fibrous source), wherein the pulp is sourced from sapwood (page 6, In 30-33: Other suitable non-limiting examples of wood fibers include hardwood, softwood, aspen, balsa, beech, birch, mahogany, hickory, maple, oak, teak, eucalyptus, pine, fir, cedar, juniper, spruce, redwood, hemlock, larch or any combination thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to source the wood from sapwood because sapwood comprises xylem (see US 2020/0138007 A1 to BioHerbecides Australia Ply Ltd., para [0128]: Sapwood is younger, living wood containing xylem and phloem vessels), and xylem comprises oriented tracheid tubes (see instant specification, para [00172], Sapwood comprises xylem tissue, which, in turn, comprises tubes called tracheids that are oriented longitudinally along the length of trunks or branches of the plant).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maryland in view of Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Resolute and US 2007/0219141 A1 to Jones et al. (hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding Claim 18, Maryland in view of Lane teaches the filter of claim 1, but does not teach the filter providing >3 log reduction of E. coli or rotavirus.
Resolute teaches a filter made of wood pulp (page 6, In 11-18: Disclosed herein are filter media comprising a fibrous material... the fibrous material comprises wood fibers. In some embodiments, the wood fibers can be provided in the form of a wood pulp or other fibrous source), wherein the pulp is sourced from sapwood (page 6, In 30-33: Other suitable non-limiting examples of wood fibers include hardwood, softwood, aspen, balsa, beech, birch, mahogany, hickory, maple, oak, teak, eucalyptus, pine, fir, cedar, juniper, spruce, redwood, hemlock, larch or any combination thereof).
Jones teaches that extract of cedar wood has antimicrobial activity wherein the minimum inhibitory concentration of the milligram of compounds per liter of medium at which there was a 99.9% or greater reduction in the original inoculum of E. coli (see para [0123]; Table 5 in para [0133]; Table 6 in para [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to source the wood from sapwood including cedar in Resolute for the wood filter of Maryland in view of Lane to provide > 3 log reduction of E. coli as having antimicrobial activity to inhibit the growth of E. coli as suggested by Jones.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, IN SUK BULLOCK can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
JK
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights