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 .
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.
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) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-155251 (hereinafter JP ‘251) in view of JP 2018001436 (hereinafter JP ‘436).
As regarding claim 1, JP ‘251 discloses the claimed invention for a hydrogen-permeable filter comprising: a mesh including a plurality of wires that are woven ([0017]-[0026]).
JP ‘251 does not disclose a tungsten mesh including a plurality of tungsten wires that are woven. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a tungsten mesh including a plurality of tungsten wires that are woven in order to enhance filter performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘436 ([0006], [0012] and figs. 1-4).
As regarding claim 2, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have an elongation percentage greater than or equal to 5%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have an elongation percentage greater than or equal to 5% in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen elongation percentage or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen elongation percentages are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 3, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the tungsten mesh has a mesh count greater than or equal to 600. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the tungsten mesh has a mesh count greater than or equal to 600 in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 4, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1600 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1600 MPa in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 5, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 2400 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 2400 MPa in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 6, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 4800 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a tensile strength greater than or equal to 4800 MPa in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 7, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a diameter less than or equal to 40 pm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of tungsten wires each have a diameter less than or equal to 40 pm in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 9, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the hydrogen-permeable filter is used within a range in which hydrogen pressure is less than or equal to 135 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the hydrogen-permeable filter is used within a range in which hydrogen pressure is less than or equal to 135 MPa in order to enhance filter performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-155251 (hereinafter JP ‘251) in view of JP 2018001436 (hereinafter JP ‘436), as applied supra, and further in view of Pall (US 3780872).
As regarding claim 8, JP ‘251 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘251 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a weave pattern of the tungsten mesh is Dutch weave. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a weave pattern of the tungsten mesh is Dutch weave in order to enhance filter performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Pall (col 2 ln 13-16; col 7 ln 2; and col 6 ln 57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights