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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/EP2023/052614, filed 02 February 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (GB2201536.6, filed 07 February 2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-19, drawn to a printed porous structure and filter arrangement comprising the printed porous structure in the reply filed on 12 August 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 20-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 August 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 5, 8, 10, 16, and 17 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 8, the acronym “TPMS” is undefined. Please amend to include the full name.
Regarding Claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation of pores having a size of about 15 µm, 10 µm, 5 µm, 3 µm, 1 µm, 500 nm and/or 100 nm”, and the claim also recites “and any intermediate sizes therein” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “said material”. It is presumed Applicant is referencing a material of the printed porous structure.
Regarding Claim 16, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROY et al. (US 2020/0215480 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, ROY discloses a triply periodic minimal surface (TMPS) structure prepared from a thermoplastic material as a 3D structure in a layer-by-layer process (i.e., said printed porous structure comprising a support layer that supports a filtration membrane, wherein said support layer and said filtration membrane are integrally formed; p0058). Exemplary hierarchical TPMS structures are shown in FIG. 10a-c.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
73
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
200
73
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. As noted, the structure is prepared via a layer-by-layer process (i.e., wherein the support layer provides a scaffold). The limitation directed to “a substrate upon which the PPS is formed” is directed to limitations not considered part of the claimed “printed porous structure” and thus, is not considered for patentability.
Regarding Claim 3, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 2. As shown in FIG. 10b, the scaffold is grid-shaped (i.e., the scaffold is grid shaped).
Regarding Claim 4, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 3. As shown in FIG. 10b-c, the grid spacing of the scaffold is substantially equal to the size of a field of view of an objective lens.
Regarding Claim 5, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. The instant limitation requiring that “the MSA process uses one or more of: a multi-step, preferably a two-step absorption (TSA) method, an optically enabled method and/or projection-based manufacturing method” is directed toward a process limitation which renders the claim a product-by-process claim. Because the prior art discloses a product that appears to be the same as the product set forth in this product-by-process claim, although produced by a different process, the claim is directly read on by the prior art (see In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP §2113). Additionally, although the immediate claim is a product-by-process claim and is limited by and defined by its process, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on the method of production. Thus, these process limitations do not further limit the claimed product.
Regarding Claims 6-8, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. As noted, ROY discloses a printed Gyroid triply periodic minimal surface (TMPS) structure (i.e., said filtration membrane comprising… a gyroid structure (Claim 6); said filtration membrane comprises at least one gyroid structure portion (Claim 7); said at least one gyroid structure portion has a TPMS structure (Claim 8); p0058).
Regarding Claim 9, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 10b-c, the structure has substantially similar sized pores.
Regarding Claim 10, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY further shows in FIG. 10c approximately 10 µm-sized pores (scale bar bottom right is 10 µm; i.e., wherein pores therein have a size of about… 10 µm).
Regarding Claim 11, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY further shows in FIG. 10c that the pores are separated by less than 10 µm, which reads on the claimed range of having pore-pore distances (pitch) of about 10 µm or less therein (scale bar bottom right is 10 µm).
Regarding Claim 13, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY further discloses the TPMS structure has a thickness of 20 µm (FIG. 10b) or 10 µm (FIG. 10c), which reads on the claimed a thickness (z) of about 5, 10 or 20 µm; at least about 30 µm; at least about 50 µm or at least about 100 µm.
Regarding Claim 14, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY further discloses the porous TPMS structure can be sealed on one or both sides (i.e., at least one region that is substantially devoid of any pore; p0059).
Regarding Claim 18, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. As noted, ROY discloses the TPMS structure is fabricated by a layer-by-layer process and further, being fused together (p0058). As such, a first layer (i.e., a support layer) and the subsequently-formed layers (i.e., a filtration membrane) are integrally formed from the same material.
Regarding Claim 19, ROY discloses a triply periodic minimal surface (TMPS) structure prepared from a thermoplastic material as a 3D structure in a layer-by-layer process (p0058). As such, a first layer (i.e., a holder) and subsequently-formed layers (i.e., a printed porous structure) are integrally formed.
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) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROY et al. (US 2020/0215480 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY is deficient in explicitly disclosing the printed porous structure has a surface diameter of about 13 mm or about 25 mm or less therein. However, ROY does show complete structures, e.g., FIG. 9. The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than the gyroid TPMS structure of ROY, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding Claim 15, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY is deficient in explicitly disclosing the printed porous structure has at least one processed area at least about 0.5 mm2 and up to at least about: 1 mm2, 10 mm2, 1 cm2 or 4-5 cm2. However, ROY does show complete structures, e.g., FIG. 9. The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than the gyroid TPMS structure of ROY, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROY et al. (US 2020/0215480 A1) in view of LIANG et al. (US 2020/0317870 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, ROY discloses the printed porous structure of Claim 1. ROY is deficient in explicitly disclosing said material of the printed porous structure comprises polyimide, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polypropylene, one or more acrylate(s), methacrylate(s), urethane(s), PEG (poly-ethylene glycol)-based, PLA (poly-lactic acid)-based, protein-based (e.g. albumin, collagen, fibrinogen) or thiolene materials, optionally in the form of low-viscosity fluids, high-viscosity fluids or solids.
LIANG discloses curable polymer resins for 3D printable hierarchical porous structures formed by additive manufacturing (abstract). The resins are prepared from a mixture of polyfunctional monomers having polymerizable functional groups, porogens, and a polymerization initiator (p0008, p0032). In some examples, LIANG discloses the use of an acrylate monomer, PEG, and a UV-active initiator (i.e., said material of the printed porous structure comprises… one or more acrylate(s)… PEG (poly-ethylene glycol)-based, PLA (poly-lactic acid)-based… materials; e.g., p0110). Advantageously, the use of such monomers and photo-initiated curing (via the UV-active initiator) provides for well-defined and highly porous structures (p0097) especially for the formation of hierarchical porous structures (p0047, p0050). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare a hierarchical 3D printed porous structure such as those disclosed by ROY utilizing the polymerizable monomer mixtures disclosed by LIANG.
Regarding Claim 17, modified ROY makes obvious the printed porous structure of Claim 16. As noted, the polymerizable mixture disclosed by LIANG requires a polymerization initiator, including photoinitiators (i.e., wherein the material is admixed to at least one photo-initiator; p0066).
Furthermore, the requirement that the material “is admixed” is directed to a process step of this product claim. Because the prior art discloses a product that appears to be the same as the product set forth in this product-by-process claim, although produced by a different process, the claim is directly read on by the prior art (see In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP §2113). Additionally, although the immediate claim is a product-by-process claim and is limited by and defined by its process, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on the method of production. Thus, these process limitations do not further limit the claimed product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights