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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 10, 14, and 15, in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement does show how the special technical feature is not a “special technical feature”. Applicant argues that the examiner does not disclose how Nikipelov (WO 2020/064217) teaches the special technical feature such that it does not define a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because Nikipelov discloses this feature, see the rejection below.
While the restriction requirement may not have clearly shown where Nikipelov discloses the common feature, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/064217 to Nikipelov et al. (hereinafter referred to as Nikipelov).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 2, Nikipelov discloses a fluid dispensing system having a fluid-permeable surface (40) that inherently has a pre-defined permeability to allow permeation of a fluid. As discussed in paragraphs [0093] and [0094], the pressures in compartments “34” and “36” can be held at desired levels to achieve the desired rate of permeation of a gas between the first compartment (34) to the second compartment (36). Holding a pressure at a desired level is a control step, and inherently requires a controller as broadly recited in the claim. Therefore, Nikipelov is inherently considered to have a controller capable of controlling the rate of permeation of a fluid into a volume by controlling a pressure of the fluid.
In regard to claims 3 and 6, the fluid is a material acted upon and does not affect the structure of the system.
In regard to claims 5, 7, and 8, the system of Nikipelov discloses all of the required structural limitations, as discussed above, and is considered to be capable of operating as recited in these claims.
In regard to claims 14 and 15, as discussed in the abstract, Nikipelov discloses a lithography apparatus, which will include the fluid dispensing system discussed above.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0221961 to Bakr et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bakr).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 1, Bakr discloses a tube-in-tube reactor (180) with an inner tube (186) that forms a fluid dispensing system. The inner tube (186) has a fluid-permeable surface having a pre-defined permeability to allow permeation of a fluid, as discussed in paragraphs [0044] – [0046]. A gas pressure bottle (170) provides a defined pressure to allow a desired amount of gas to permeate the inner tube into the outer tube (183). The gas pressure bottle can be considered to form a controller, as broadly recited in the claim, that controls the rate of permeation of a fluid into a volume by controlling a pressure of the fluid.
In regard to claim 2, the fluid -permeable surface is defined by the tube (186).
In regard to claims 3 and 6, the fluid is a material acted upon and does not affect the structure of the system.
In regard claim 4, as discussed in paragraph [0050], the inner tube can be plastic.
In regard to claims 5, 7, and 8, the system of Bakr discloses all of the required structural limitations, as discussed above, and is considered to be capable of operating as recited in these claims.
In regard to claim 9, the pressure bottle regulates the pressure of the gas (i.e. the fluid) and can be considered a pressure regulator, as broadly recited in the claim.
Claims 1 and 3 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0109049 to Suzuki et al. (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 1, Suzuki discloses a system that can be considered a fluid dispensing system. The reverse osmosis (RO) membrane device (12) includes a membrane with a fluid permeable surface having a pre-determined permeability to allow permeation of a fluid. Suzuki further includes a controller (30) that can operate a pressurizing pump (13). As discussed in paragraph [0023], the controller operates the pump to change the pressure to maintain a constant flow rate of permeate water flowing through the membrane to the permeate water line (L2). Thus, the controller is capable of controlling the rate of permeation of the fluid into a volume by controlling a pressure using the pump.
In regard to claims 3 and 6, the fluid is a material acted upon and does not affect the structure of the system. Additionally, Suzuki discloses using water as the fluid, which is nitrogen-free.
In regard to claim 4, the membrane can be a polyamide-based RO membrane, as discussed in paragraph [0022]. A polyamide is a plastic material.
In regard to claims 5, 7, and 8, the system of Suzuki discloses all of the required structural limitations, as discussed above, and is considered to be capable of operating as recited in these claims.
In regard to claim 9, as discussed above, Suzuki includes a pump (13) that controls the pressure of the fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights