Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 57, 25, 26, 54 and 55 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.
Claim 57 recites “a second filtration member positioned within the underdrain interior, the second filtration member comprising a perforated plate.” Claim 57 is dependent on independent claim 24, which recites “a support member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate, the support member including a plurality of perforations”. The Examiner is unable to locate the support for claim 57, which encompasses the claimed second filtration member and the claimed support member, wherein the support member includes a plurality of perforations and the second filtration member comprises a perforated plate, in the as-originally filed specification. It is noted that the as-originally filed specification an underdrain apparatus comprising a support member including a plurality of perforations, an underdrain apparatus comprising a second filtration member comprising a perforated plate but does not disclose an underdrain apparatus comprising a support member including a plurality of perforations and a second filtration member comprising a perforated plate.
In the response, Applicant states “Support for this amendment is found within the application as originally filed at Page 9, Line 16 - Page 10, Line 12” (for claim 24); and “New claim 57 is fully supported by the specification as filed at Page 14, Lines 13-18” (see Response page 10).
Pages 9-10 of the as-originally filed specification provides detailed descriptions of figures 1-3. Page 14 of the as-originally filed specification provides detailed descriptions of figure 6. Figures 1-3 and 6 does not disclose an embodiment of an underdrain apparatus comprising both a support member and a second filtration member.
The citations to the as-originally filed specification, as presented in the August 18, 2026 Response, does not support the breadth of the claim amendment. The Examiner respectfully request that, if Applicant believes that there is support for this amendment in the original disclosure, Applicants provide the Examiner with the exact page with line and/or paragraph; figure with reference number(s) and/or the original claim number that supports the claimed “FEATURE” limitation.
Claims 25, 26, 54 and 55 are also rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 24, 56, 3 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5156738 A (hereinafter US 738).
Regarding claim 24, US 738 discloses an underdrain apparatus (see US 738 filter assembly 10 – abstract and figures 1-6 & 10-12, component (10), abstract and col. 3, lines 15-23).
US 738 discloses a curved upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid (see US 738 distribution member 20, curved upper surface 28 – abstract and col 6 lines 1-10)
US 738 discloses the curved upper structure configured to support an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure (Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 738 is substantially identical to the claimed curved upper structure of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 738 is presumed inherently capable of supporting an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure).
US 738 discloses the curved upper structure including a first filtration member through which the fluid flows, the first filtration defining an arcuate cross-sectional shape of the curved upper structure, the first filtration member comprising a wedge wire screen (see US 738 curved upper surface 28, wedge-shaped wire 30, – figures 1, 2, 10 & 12 and col 6 lines 1-10).
US 738 discloses a flat bottom plate connected to and positioned under the curved upper structure so as to define an underdrain interior, the flat bottom plate configured for fluid connection with an underdrain trench (see US 738 baseplate 42 – figures 1-5, 12 and col. 6, lines 24-28).
US 738 discloses a support member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate, the support member including a plurality of perforations (see US 738 cylindrical array of channel-shaped rod member 34 is formed between the base plate 42 and the slot openings 44 and/or openings 38/40 formed in the upper surface 28 of the distributor member 20 – figures 2, 10-12; col 6 lines 6, 7, 10-24, & 29-31).
US 738 discloses wherein the curved upper structure, the flat bottom plate and the support member define an elongated structure and the fluid flows between the external filter media and the trench through the curved upper structure, the interior of the elongated structure and the flat bottom plate (see US 738 figures 1-3 & 10-12; col 5 lines 50-58; col 6 lines 1-68; col 7 lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 56, US 738 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 738 discloses the support member comprises a u- shaped cross section (see rejection of claim 24; see US 738 figure 2).
US 738 is deemed to disclose a support member that comprises a plurality of u-shaped cross sections.
Regarding claim 3, US 738 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 738 discloses the flat bottom plate further comprises an opening for draining fluid into the trench (see US 738 header member 24, which is shown in the form of a trough formed in the floor 14 – figures 1, 3-5 & 12; col. 5, lines 53-58).
Regarding claim 18, US 738 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 738 discloses a tubular member positioned in the trench for directing fluid flow ((see rejection of claim 3; see US 738 figures 1, 3-5 & 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, & 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5156738 A (hereinafter US 738) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US 1,788,383 (hereinafter US 383).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 4, US 738 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 738 does not disclose a flow control vane positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 1, and does not disclose a plurality of vanes positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 4.
US 383 discloses an underdrain apparatus for filtering particulates from a fluid (see figure 1-6, col. 1, lines 1-28). US 383 disclose that the in the apparatus, between an upper structure and a bottom plate, a plurality of flow control vanes (7) are present (see figures 7, 8, 10, & 11, col. 2, lines 83-98).
US 383 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. fluid filtering, underdrain and/or drain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate one or more vanes, as disclosed in US 383, in the apparatus of US 738 because the vane(s) of US 383 will assist in controlling the flow of fluid within the apparatus by restricting or redirecting the flow of fluid within the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6 US 738 in view of US 383 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 738 in view of US 383 discloses at least one vane is positioned perpendicular to the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 5, and discloses at least one vane is positioned parallel to the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 6 (see US 383 figures US 383 7, 8, 10, & 11, col. 2, lines 83-98).
US 738 in view of US 383 is deemed to disclose that at least one point along the curved vane will be perpendicular and/or parallel to a portion of the flat bottom plate.
Regarding claim 7 and claim 8, US 738 in view of US 383 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 738 in view of US 383 discloses at least one vane is positioned at an angle relative to the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 7, and discloses the plurality of vanes are each positioned at one or more angles relative to the flat bottom plate, as recited in claim 8 (see US 383 figures US 383 7, 8, 10, & 11, col. 2, lines 83-98).
US 738 in view of US 383 is deemed to disclose that at least one point along the curved vane will be at an angle relative to a portion of the flat bottom plate and/or the plurality of vanes are each positioned at one or more angles relative to the flat bottom plate.
Regarding claim 9 US 738 in view of US 383 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 738 in view of US 383 discloses the plurality of vanes are positioned along a longitudinal length of the underdrain (see rejection of claims 5-8; see US 383 figures 8, 10, 10 and 11).
Claims 57, 25, 26, 54, & 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5156738 A (hereinafter US 738) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of WO1995/027549A1 (hereinafter WO 549).
Regarding claim 57, US 738 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 738 does not disclose a second filtration member positioned within the underdrain interior, the second filtration member comprising a perforated plate.
WO 549 discloses an underdrain distributor for use in a filter system/lateral type underdrain systems (see figures 1-12; page 4, lines 13-25). WO 549 discloses that the apparatus (see WO 549 figures 9-12 blocks 94, 128, 146, 172 – page 12 line 26 – page 13 line 4; page 13 line 24 – page 14 line 2; page 14 lines 3-8; page 14 lines 15-17) comprises an upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid (see WO 549 figures 9-12, the top half of the blocks 94, 128, 146, 172– page 12 line 26 – page 13 line 4; page 13 line 24 – page 14 line 2; page 14 lines 3-8; page 14 lines 15-17). WO 549 discloses that the apparatus comprises support wall(s) (see WO 549 figure 9 support wall 108; figure 10 illustrates central support wall; figure 11 internal walls 154; figure 12 internal walls 180 or conduit 186 – page 12 line 26 – page 13 line 4; page 13 line 24 – page 14 line 2; page 14 lines 3-8; page 14 lines 15-17). WO 549 discloses that the support wall(s) are perforated, i.e. have holes, and that the support walls assist with providing support, allowing for larger block configurations, allow for flow of air and/or water between the various conduits (see WO 549 page 13 lines 2-4).
WO 549 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. underdrain apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the underdrain of US 738 by incorporating a support wall, such as the support wall 108/central support wall, internal walls 154, internal walls 180 and/or conduit 186, as disclosed in WO 549, because it would assist with providing additional support to the underdrain of US 738, because it would assist with achieving a larger block configuration, and/or because it would assist with allowing for the flow of air and/or water between various conduits within the underdrain apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the underdrain of US 738 by incorporating a support wall, such as the support wall 108/ central support wall, internal walls 154, internal walls 180 and/or conduit 186, as disclosed in WO 549, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide support and/or assist with flow of air/water through the support wall.
Hence, US 738 in view of WO 549 is deemed to disclose a second filtration member positioned within the underdrain interior, the second filtration member comprising a perforated plate.
Regarding claim 25, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 57. Further, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the second filtration member has a cross-sectional shape that is different from the arcuate cross-sectional shape of the curved upper structure defined by the first filtration member (see rejection of claim 57; see WO 549 figures 9-12).
Regarding claim 26, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 57. Further, US 738 in view of WO 549 does not disclose concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped and v-shaped.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the shape support walls, as disclosed in US 738 in view of WO 549, because it is prima facie obvious to substitute the shape of the support walls (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B (changes in shape are merely 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 container was significant”).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the shape support walls, as disclosed in US 738 in view of WO 549, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide support and/or flow of water through the wall.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the support walls, as disclosed in US 738 in view of WO 549, to be a shape, such as concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped or v-shaped. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 54, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 57. Further, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the second filtration member is coupled to the first filtration member, said second filtration member supporting the first filtration member (see rejection of claim 57).
In the alternative, if US 738 in view of WO 549 does not disclose a “the second filtration member is coupled to the first filtration member, said second filtration member supporting the first filtration member.”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 738 in view of WO 549.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to couple the support wall(s), as disclosed in US 738 in view of WO 549, to the first filtration member because it would assist with achieving the objective of providing support to the upper portion of the underdrain apparatus.
Regarding claim 55, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 57. Further, US 738 in view of WO 549 discloses the second filtration member is positioned a distance away from the first filtration member (see rejection of claim 57).
It is understood that “a distance away” may be any distance. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
