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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 11 May 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended; Claim 2 has been canceled; and new Claims 8 and 9 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-6 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 and Claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 are sufficient; these rejections have been withdrawn. Furthermore, regarding the Claim Interpretation of the noted recited limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A), VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A), and SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A) and Claim(s) 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A), VANTOEVER (US 5,593,574 A), SAMPATACOS (US 2,348,928 A), and further in view of SHEEDY (CA 2,077,531 A1), Applicant’s amendments are sufficient; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of LAWSON (US 4,927,275) and GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1); 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 LAWSON (US 4,927,275), GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1), and SHEEDY (CA 2,077,531 A1); and Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWSON (US 4,927,275) in view of GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
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, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDERS et al. (US 5,894,936 A) in view of LAWSON (US 4,927,275) and GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1).
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., an inlet tube configured to deliver water to said spray bar; c4/51-52).
[AltContent: textbox ((inlet tube, deliver water))][AltContent: textbox (SPRAY PIPE (spray bar))][AltContent: textbox (FEED PIPE (inlet, unclean water))][AltContent: textbox (OPENINGS (water exit))][AltContent: textbox (DISTAL END (first end))][AltContent: textbox (PROXIMAL END (second end))][AltContent: textbox (DRUM (housing))]
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 and said bearing being lubricated by water and contacting said rocker shoe.
LAWSON discloses a hydrodynamic bearing assembly (c3/3-6). As shown in FIG. 1, the hydrodynamic bearing assembly 1 comprises a plurality of bearing pads 2 (i.e., rocker shoes) surrounding a moving member/shaft (not shown) (i.e., a bearing; c4/22-28). A lubricant is further disposed in contact with the bearing pads and moving member (c4/30-32), said lubricant being water (i.e., said bearing being lubricated by water and contacting said rocker shoe; c4/46).
[AltContent: textbox (BEARING PADS (rocker shoes))][AltContent: textbox (MOVING MEMBER/SHAFT (bearing))]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Such a hydrodynamic bearing assembly advantageously more evenly distributes the stresses or loads thereon and provides the bearing with more capacity (c3/57-62). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a bearing such as the water-lubricated hydrodynamic bearing contacting bearing pads disclosed by LAWSON for the rotary screening device disclosed by SANDERS.
Modified SANDERS is deficient in disclosing an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing while said bearing is in use.
GULATI discloses a water bearing assembly for accommodating rotating elements (p0001-0002; p0011). The bearing assembly includes lubrication ports 126A, 126B that provide pathways 128A, 128B for process fluid (p0029); lubrication nozzles 130A, 130B direct process fluid from the lubrication flow paths 128A, 128B toward the interface between thrust collar 112 and thrust pads 132A, 132B (i.e., an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing while said bearing is in use; FIG. 4; p0032). GULATI further discloses the process fluid is water, e.g., seawater (p0023). Advantageously, this direction of process fluid directly between the thrust pads and thrust collar (i.e., between the rocker shoes and bearing) allow for the process fluid to be constantly maintained at a sufficient level to provide lubrication and cooling (p0032). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing as taught by GULATI for the rotary screening device made obvious by modified SANDERS.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, modified SANDERS makes obvious the rotary screening device of Claim 1. As noted earlier, GULATI further discloses lubrication ports 126A, 126B that provide pathways 128A, 128B for process fluid (p0029) and lubrication nozzles 130A, 130B for directing process fluid from the lubrication flow paths 128A, 128B toward the interface between thrust collar 112 and thrust pads 132A, 132B (i.e., said inlet port is positioned to deliver water between said bearing and said rocker shoe (Claim 8); wherein said inlet port is positioned adjacent said rocker shoe (Claim 9); FIG. 4; p0032).
[AltContent: textbox (LUBRICATION NOZZLE)][AltContent: textbox (THRUST PAD (rocker shoe))][AltContent: textbox (LUBRICATION PORT (inlet port))]
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 LAWSON (US 4,927,275) and GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1), 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWSON (US 4,927,275) in view of GULATI (US 2015/0176591 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, LAWSON discloses a hydrodynamic bearing assembly (c3/3-6). As shown in FIG. 1, the hydrodynamic bearing assembly 1 comprises a plurality of bearing pads 2 (i.e., rocker shoes) surrounding a moving member/shaft (not shown) (i.e., a bearing; c4/22-28). A lubricant is further disposed in contact with the bearing pads and moving member (c4/30-32), said lubricant being water (i.e., being lubricated by water; c4/46). Such a hydrodynamic bearing assembly advantageously more evenly distributes the stresses or loads thereon and provides the bearing with more capacity (c3/57-62).
LAWSON is deficient in disclosing an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing as a lubricant.
GULATI discloses a water bearing assembly for accommodating rotating elements (p0001-0002; p0011). The bearing assembly includes lubrication ports 126A, 126B that provide pathways 128A, 128B for process fluid (p0029); lubrication nozzles 130A, 130B direct process fluid from the lubrication flow paths 128A, 128B toward the interface between thrust collar 112 and thrust pads 132A, 132B (i.e., an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing as a lubricant; FIG. 4; p0032). GULATI further discloses the process fluid is water, e.g., seawater (p0023). Advantageously, this direction of process fluid directly between the thrust pads and thrust collar (i.e., between the rocker shoes and bearing) allow for the process fluid to be constantly maintained at a sufficient level to provide lubrication and cooling (p0032). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an inlet port configured to deliver water to said bearing as taught by GULATI for the rocker shoe and bearing combination disclosed by LAWSON.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights