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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a system for delivering said water to said bearing” in Claim 1; and
“a water system for delivering water to said spray bar” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations “a system for delivering said water to said bearing” and “a water system for delivering water to said spray bar” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; however, the Specification fails to provide any description or detail beyond the general terms “a system” and “a water system” as claimed. As such, these limitations are considered to fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 3-6 are also rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, limitations “a system for delivering said water to said bearing” and “a water system for delivering water to said spray bar” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification fails to provide any description or detail beyond the general terms “a system” and “a water system” as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-6 are also rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
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) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A) and further in view of SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A).
Regarding Claim 1, SANDERS discloses a drum separator 10 as shown in FIG. 1 (annotated below) and described in detail from c3/14 through c5/4. The separator comprises a drum 12 (i.e., a housing) rotated about an axis 14 (c3/19-24) disposed on a shaft turned by an electric motor (i.e., a motor; c5/34-37). The drum has a proximal end 16 and a distal end 18 (i.e., a second end and a first end, respectively); proximal end 16 is partially closed by a plate 17 with hole 19, and distal end 18 is open (c3/26-31). On the cylindrical surface of the drum 12 a screen member disposed (i.e., a rotary screen; c3/45-51); the drum is designed to allow for water to pass through openings 20 (i.e., a water exit from said housing; c3/32-36). Distal end 18 is open to allow for debris to be removed from the internal volume of the drum 12 (i.e., a solids outlet from said rotary screen; c4/57-60). A feed pipe 30 extends into the drum 12 through hole 19 of plate 17 at proximal end 16 and feeds raw material/fluid into the drum 12 (i.e., an inlet for supplying and distributing uncleaned water to the interior of said rotary screen; c3/51-53). An external spray jet 50 is disposed to spray against the external surface of the drum 12, e.g., the external spray jet sprays water against the openings 20 to dislodge any debris (c4/38-45). The external spray jet 50 is fed by a spray pipe 52 (i.e., a spray bar for providing cleaning water to an outside surface of said rotary screen) to which it is fed water (as indicated by the arrow pointing into the pipe 52) (i.e., a water system for delivering water to said spray bar; c4/51-52).
[AltContent: textbox ((water system for delivering water) )][AltContent: textbox (SPRAY PIPE (spray bar))][AltContent: textbox (DRUM (housing))][AltContent: textbox (FEED PIPE (inlet))][AltContent: textbox (DISTAL END (first end, solids outlet))][AltContent: textbox (OPENINGS (water exit))][AltContent: textbox (PROXIMAL END (second end))]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SANDERS is deficient in disclosing said second end outside surface of the rotary screen supporting a bearing.
VANTOEVER discloses a water treatment system for aquaculture (abstract). The treatment system is shown in FIGs. 1 and 2 (cropped FIG. 1 shown below) and described in c7/12-19. Conduit 120 leads to a rotatable filter spray bar 122 mounted on a water-lubricated bearing 124 for rotation about pipe end 126 (c7/12-15). Advantageously, such a water-lubricated bearing-mounted spray bar allows for a cyclical distribution of water-to-be-treated such that any film buildup from debris can be minimized or reduced due to the periodic agitation introduced by the cyclical motion (c9/22-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rotatable filter spray bar mounted on a water-lubricated bearing taught by VANTOEVER to mount onto the plate of the proximal end of the drum separator taught by SANDERS.
[AltContent: textbox (CONDUIT)][AltContent: textbox (BEARING)][AltContent: textbox (ROTATABLE FILTER SPRAY BAR)]
PNG
media_image2.png
60
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified SANDERS is deficient in disclosing the second end of the rotary screen rotating on a rocker shoe or that the bearing contacts said rocker shoe.
SAMPATACOS discloses a conventional bearing construction wherein a rotary member is supported by a plurality of segmental rockable shoes (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 1-5; FIG. 1). Briefly, a series of segmental shoes 4 provides an inner bearing surface onto which the rotary member or shaft 1 rotates (pg. 1, col. 2, lines 8-14). Advantageously, such rockable bearing shoes allows for the bearing construction to be used in a wide variety of speeds and loads (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 5-7) and further minimizes instability in the construction (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 14-22). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a bearing construction comprising rocker shoes surrounding/supporting a rotatable bearing as taught by SAMPATACOS for the water-lubricated bearing made obvious by modified SANDERS.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, SANDERS discloses a drum separator 10 as shown in FIG. 1 and described in detail from c3/14 through c5/4. The separator comprises a drum 12 rotated about an axis 14 (c3/19-24) disposed on a shaft turned by an electric motor (c5/34-37). The drum has a proximal end 16 and a distal end 18 (i.e., a second end and a first end, respectively); proximal end 16 is partially closed by a plate 17 with hole 19, and distal end 18 is open (c3/26-31). A feed pipe 30 extends into the drum 12 through hole 19 of plate 17 at proximal end 16 and feeds raw material/fluid into the drum 12 (c3/51-53).
SANDERS is deficient in disclosing a bearing being mountable in the rotary screening device.
VANTOEVER discloses a water treatment system for aquaculture (abstract). The treatment system is shown in FIGs. 1 and 2 and described in c7/12-19. Conduit 120 leads to a rotatable filter spray bar 122 mounted on a water-lubricated bearing 124 for rotation about pipe end 126 (c7/12-15). Advantageously, such a water-lubricated bearing-mounted spray bar allows for a cyclical distribution of water-to-be-treated such that any film buildup from debris can be minimized or reduced due to the periodic agitation introduced by the cyclical motion (c9/22-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rotatable filter spray bar mounted on a water-lubricated bearing taught by VANTOEVER to mount onto the plate of the proximal end of the drum separator taught by SANDERS.
Modified SANDERS is deficient in disclosing a rocker shoe mounted near the bearing and wherein said bearing rides on an inside surface of said rocker shoe.
SAMPATACOS discloses a conventional bearing construction wherein a rotary member is supported by a plurality of segmental rockable shoes (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 1-5; FIG. 1). Briefly, a series of segmental shoes 4 provides an inner bearing surface onto which the rotary member or shaft 1 rotates (pg. 1, col. 2, lines 8-14). Advantageously, such rockable bearing shoes allows for the bearing construction to be used in a wide variety of speeds and loads (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 5-7) and further minimizes instability in the construction (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 14-22). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a bearing construction comprising rocker shoes surrounding/supporting a rotatable bearing as taught by SAMPATACOS for the water-lubricated bearing made obvious by modified SANDERS.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A) and SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of SHEEDY (CA 2,077,531 A1).
Regarding Claims 3-6, modified SANDERS makes obvious the rotary screening device of Claim 1. Modified SANDERS is deficient in disclosing the rotary screen bearing is manufactured from plastic (Claim 3), from ceramic (Claim 4), or from metal (Claim 5), specifically, stainless steel (Claim 6).
SHEEDY discloses bearings and bearing assemblies, especially bearings comprising rotatable shafts (pg. 1, lines 1-13). SHEEDY further discloses a number of materials that can be used to construct various parts of the rotary bearings, including thermoplastic polyester resins (i.e., plastic; pg. 8, lines 8-9), corrosion proof metal such as stainless steel (i.e., metal; stainless steel; pg. 8, lines 10-12), and ceramic coatings (i.e., ceramic; pg. 8, lines 13-14). Such materials are disclosed by SHEEDY to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (pg. 8, lines 31-34). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the various different materials, including plastic, ceramic, metal/stainless steel, as taught by SHEEDY for the rotary screen bearing made obvious by modified SANDERS.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 26 July 2023 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite, Applicant’s amendments are persuasive; this rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over BRATTEN or FRYKULT each in view of KUNDERMAN, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive; this rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and search, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A) and further in view of SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A) and for Claim(s) 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A) and SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A) and further in view of SHEEDY (CA 2,077,531 A1).
Please note also the added 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of Claims 1 and 3-6.
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 1777