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 § 112
Claims 2 and 4 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.
The term “macromolecule” in claims 2 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “macromolecule” 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. A macromolecule is a large molecule formed by polymerization. There is no art recognized size to determine when a molecule is considered a macromolecule as the size is a relative term. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would unable to definitively determine what size molecule would infringe on 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)(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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hom et al. US 2017/0369343.
Claim 1, Hom teaches a device comprising a filter bag (100), an inner side of the filter bag being at least partially coated with a flocculant (fig. 1, par 20). The recitation of the device being for providing and treating a liquid purifiable in an interior of the device and the liquid purifiable in the interior of the device by the filter bag, the liquid capable of being taken up by the filter bag is a recitation of an intended use of the device and the material worked on by the device and do not provide any further structural limitations to the device. The device of Hom is capable of holding liquid that is taken up by the filter bag.
Claims 5-7, Hom also teaches a method for producing a filter bag as recited in claim 1 where the inner side of the filter bag is partially coated with the flocculant (par 20) and therefore the filter bag produced by the method of claim 5 is also present. Hom also teaches using the filter bag of claim 6 to purify liquid (abstract).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hom et al. US 2017/0369343 in view of Hanna WO 2021/007681.
Claims 2-4, Hom teaches the flocculant, “…can be, for example, AJAX CLEAN WATER from the Colgate-Palmolive company of New York, N.Y. or the like” (par 20). It’s unclear what “AJAX CLEAN WATER” is as the examiner was unable to determine what product Hom was referencing.
Hanna teaches a device comprising a geotextile with a flocculant comprising a polymer with a high molecular weight, which is considered to be an organic macromolecule, that is arranged within the textile material (abstract, par 55). Polymers and organic macromolecules are well-known types of flocculants in the art, as demonstrated by Hanna and would have been an obvious choice of flocculant 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0369342 Hom et al.
CN 102992510 Sun
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