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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on September 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The election has been treated as an election without traverse because no statement was made indicating whether the election was made with or without traverse.
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 8, 2026.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumeister et al (PGPub 2021/0106949 cited in IDS) and Reuschenbach (WO2016102364 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Baumeister teaches a device for producing a bundle of hollow fiber membranes (Abstract), comprising
a base featuring a trough in the shape of a cylinder section (Figs. 1a-b- base 1); and
a rigid lid with a bottom surface featuring a cylinder section (Figs. 1a-2c- flaps 2) and being connected to the base via at least one hinge (Figs. 1a-2c- hinge 3), so that the lid is moveable between a first position and a second position (Figs. 1a-2c- showing movement between first and second position),
wherein the device is configured to receive a plurality of hollow fiber membranes when the lid is in the first position (Fig. 2a-c- bundle 7), and the base and the lid together frame a cylindrical void when the lid is in the second position (Figs. 1b, 2c),
Baumeister does not teach both the base and the lid feature longitudinal edges having the form of a periodic curve oscillating around a mean value where base and lid contact each other when the lid is in the second position, the periodic curve being selected from i. a cosine curve, A*cos (x), having maxima at both ends of the device, ii. an inverted cosine curve, A*-cos(x), having minima at both ends of the device, iii. a sine curve, A*sin(x), the amplitude of the curve corresponding to the mean value at both ends of the device, or iv. a periodic curve comprised of consecutive circular or ellipsoidal segments in alternating orientation.
Reuschenbach teaches an alternative device for producing a bundle of hollow fiber membranes [0001]; [0003] wherein mold parts feature longitudinal edges having the form of a periodic curve oscillating around a mean value (Fig. 3- recesses 21, 22 in mold parts 1,4) where the mold parts contact each other when the mold is in the second position (Figs. 1b, 2b-c, 3, 5b-f) the periodic curve being selected from i. a cosine curve, A*cos (x), having maxima at both ends of the device, ii. an inverted cosine curve, A*-cos(x), having minima at both ends of the device, iii. a sine curve, A*sin(x), the amplitude of the curve corresponding to the mean value at both ends of the device, or iv. a periodic curve comprised of consecutive circular or ellipsoidal segments in alternating orientation (Fig. 3- consecutive alternating ellipsoidal segments of recesses 21, 22) in order to allow production of bundles with high packing density [0032], accommodate a wide range of bundle diameters without tool conversion [0030], and allow mold segments to overlap and dip without interfering with each other [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Baumeister to include mold parts with consecutive alternating recesses as taught by Reuschenbach with reasonable expectation of success to allow production of bundles with high packing density [0032], accommodate a wide range of bundle diameters without tool conversion [0030], and allow mold segments to overlap and dip without interfering with each other [0064].
Regarding Claim 2-3, Reuschenbach does not specify the periodic curve is comprised of consecutive circular segments with identical radius in alternating orientation wherein the radius is in the range of from 10 mm to 30 mm. However, the courts have held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Since applicants did not provide persuasive evidence that consecutive circular segments of the periodic curve were significant, one skilled in the art would have found choosing a particular curve shape a matter of choice and therefore obvious.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Reuschenbach further teaches the device can be designed in any length in the direction of the bundle’s longitudinal axis [0071] and the number of mold segments forming consecutive alternating ellipsoidal recesses is tied to the overall length of the device [0068]. Thus, this is a result-effective variable modifying the length of the device. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize the number of mold segments forming consecutive alternating ellipsoidal recesses through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of device length, consult MPEP 2144.05 II thus meeting the instant limitations of the length of the device corresponds to an integer number of periods of the periodic function wherein the number is in the range of from 2 to 12.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Reuschenbach further discusses an embodiment wherein the opening of the device is 50mm [0071], discusses an example wherein the fiber bundle has a diameter of 29mm [0058], and teaches the device accommodate a wide range of bundle diameters without tool conversion [0030] but does not specify an exact diameter of the cylindrical void in the range of 30-50mm or 15-25mm. However, the courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Thus, the instantly claimed device is not patentably distinct from Reuchenbach because the instantly claimed proportions would not perform differently than the device of Reuschenbach.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/15/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights