Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on January 28, 20226.
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 1, 3-11, 18, 24-26, and 52-55 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.
Independent claim 24 recites “the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types”. The Examiner is unable to locate the support for this feature in the original disclosure.
In the response, Applicant states “Support for this amendment is found within the application as filed at Page 9, Lines 16-20 and Page 14, Lines 13-15” (see Response page 8).
Page 9 lines 16-20 recites “a first filtration member 42 such as a wire mesh screen, a plurality of screen elements, a perforated plate, or any other structure capable of filtering media known in the art” and Page 14, lines 13-18 recites that the “upper structure 140 may optionally include a second filtration member 144, which in one embodiment, is a perforated plate … . The second filtration member 144 includes perforations or holes that allow fluid or water to move through the upper structure 140”.
The citations to the as-originally filed specification, as presented in the January 28, 2026 Response, does not support the breadth of the claim amendment. For example, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types” would encompass more than just a difference between a perforated plate and a wire mesh screen.
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 1, 3-11, 18, 25-27, 41, 47 and 52-55 are also rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejections based on US 5976370
Claims 24, 26, 54, 55, 1, 3-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5976370 (hereinafter US 370).
Regarding claim 24, US 370 discloses an underdrain system that retains filter media and allows liquid, such as water, to pass through the medica, the drain and into the ground (see US 370 abstract, figures 2-5 and col 1 lines 36-41), which is deemed an underdrain apparatus.
US 370 discloses “filter media particles rest on a pair of perforated plates which are spaced apart by a spacer having a thickness less than the size of the media particles” (see US 370 col 1 lines 46-49; see also US 370 col 2 lines 38-50 and figures 2-5). US 370 discloses that the places may have a curved shape (see US 370 col 2 lines 47-50), which is deemed a curved upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid, the curved upper structure configured to support an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure, 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 and a second filtration member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate.
US 370 discloses that the upper plate may be flat, bent or curved (see US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1). Hence, US 370 is deemed to disclose a curved upper structure.
While US 370 does not disclose a single embodiment of a curved upper structure, as recited in claim 24, US 370 does disclose all of the features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 370 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 24, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 370 intended, i.e. filter liquid and/or retain media.
US 370 discloses the system comprises a “bottom plate has a corresponding underlying grid having two perforations centered on the other diagonal, thus offsetting the bottom perforations from the top perforations” (see US 370 col 1 lines 51-54), that the “bottom of each underdrain lateral is formed by a flat, horizontal plate 20 supported on the filter bottom 16. The flumes 18 are positioned on the filter bottom below it and extend perpendicular to the underdrain laterals. The flumes 18 may be formed in concrete 21 which underlies the filter” (see US 370 col 28-33) and that between the upper perforated plate and the bottom an area (46) is formed (see US 370 figure 3; col 3 lines 38-52), which is deemed 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.
US 370 discloses “[I]n use, the liquid that is to be filtered is introduced into the top portion of the filter chamber 12 and flows downwardly through the media particles 30 under the influence of gravity, vacuum or pressure. The filter media filters out impurities from the liquid and allows the liquid to filter through the particles to the plates 24 and 26. The liquid is able to flow through the perforations 42 in the upper plate and to flow between the plates and through the perforations 44 in the same grid of the lower plate 26. In this manner, the filtered liquid is able to flow into the area 46 above the filter bottom 16 and beneath the lower plates 26. When the liquid level on floor 18 builds up to the level of the open top end of the drain pipe 22, the liquid flows into the flume 18 through the drain pipe. Thus, the liquid is filtered by the media particles 30 and is able to flow out through the drain pipe 22” (see US 370 col 3 lines 38-52; see also US 370 figures 2-5; col 4 lines 9-12), which is deemed the curved upper structure, the flat bottom plate and the second filtration 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.
US 370 discloses that the “individual plates 24 and 26 are flat, bent or curved plates, and the lower plates 26 are parallel to and spaced closely below the corresponding upper plates 24” (see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1). US 370 discloses that the perforations of the upper plate and the lower plate “may have any suitable size and shape” (see US 370 col 3 lines 34-35). US 370 discloses that the perforations of the upper plate and the lower plate are offset or staggered from one another (see US 370 col 3 lines 32-34; see also US 370 figure 1 and col 3 lines 56-57 (US 370 discloses that “Because of the offset or staggered arrangement of the openings 42 and 44, any material that passes through both openings 42 and 44 must also pass through the space between the plates 24 and 26. This space is smaller than the minimum particle size, so the particles 30 are unable to pass through it and reach the bottom perforations 44. Consequently, the media particles 30 are retained in the filter compartment 12 and are not washed into the drain system along with the filtered liquid” (see US 370 col 3 lines 56-64).).
While US 370 does not disclose a single embodiment of each plate may have a different shape, a different size or shape pore/hole of the perforated plate, as recited in claim 24, US 370 does disclose all of the features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. That is, US 370 discloses that the upper plate may have a curved shape and the lower plate may have a different shape, such as a bent or flat shape, and/or may have an offset configuration of perforation achieved by different size or shape pores/holes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 370 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 24, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 370 intended, i.e. filter liquid and/or retain media.
In the alternative, even if US 370 does not disclose a “the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 370.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 by having the upper plate and the lower plate have different size pore/hole openings from each other because it would assist with achieving the offset/staggered configuration and/or because it would assist with the trapping/retaining of media particles between the upper plate and the lower plate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 by having the upper plate and the lower plate have different size pore/hole openings from each other and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 by having the upper plate and the lower plate have different shape pore/hole openings from each other because it would assist with achieving the offset/staggered configuration and/or because it would assist with the trapping/retaining of media particles between the upper plate and the lower plate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 by having the upper plate and the lower plate have different shape pore/hole openings from each other and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter water.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “different screen types” is understood to be the first filtration member and the second filtration member must have a difference in at least one aspect of the screen, such as a difference in the sizing or shape of the pores/holes of the screen, i.e. coarse, fine; a difference form of the screen, i.e. wedge wire screen, perforated plate, mesh screen; or a difference in material to form the screen, i.e. stainless steel, ceramic, plastic.
Hence, US 370 is deemed to disclose an underdrain apparatus, comprising a curved upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid, the curved upper structure configured to support an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure, 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; 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 and a second filtration member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate, wherein the curved upper structure, the flat bottom plate and the second filtration 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 and wherein the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types.
Regarding claim 25, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses that the upper plate and lower plate have an offset pattern and that the individual plates may have a bent, flat or curved structure (see US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1).
US 370 does not disclose 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.
While US 370 does not disclose a single embodiment of cross-flow membrane filtration channel, as recited in claim 25, US 370 does disclose all of the features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. That is, US 370 discloses that the upper plate may have a curved shape and the lower plate may have a different shape, such as a bent or flat shape, and/or may have an offset configuration of perforation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 370 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 25, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 370 intended, i.e. filter liquid and/or retain media.
Regarding claim 26, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the second filtration member has a cross-sectional shape selected from the list consisting of w-shaped, v-shaped, concave and convex (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see also US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1).
US 370 does not disclose the lower plate has a cross-sectional shape selected from the list consisting of concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped and v-shaped.
Nevertheless, 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 shape of the lower plate to be a shape that would assist with allowing fluid to travel through the system while retaining the media.
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 shape of the lower plate to be a shape, such as concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped and v-shaped, because 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. Herein, the change in shape would yield the predictable result of allowing fluid to travel through the system and/or retain media.
Regarding claim 54, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the second filtration member is coupled to the first filtration member, said second filtration member supporting the first filtration member (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 8 (US 370 discloses that spacers 36 and 38 are sandwich between and secured to each of the upper plate and the lower plate).).
Regarding claim 55, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the second filtration member is positioned a distance away from the first filtration member (see rejection of claim 54).
Regarding claim 1, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses a flow control vane positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 8 (US 370 discloses that spacers 36 and 38, which are sandwich between the upper plate and the lower plate, will necessarily affect the flow of fluid traveling from above the upper plate to the bottom).
Regarding claim 3, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the flat bottom plate further comprises an opening for draining fluid into the trench (see rejection of claim 24).
US 370 discloses that the “flumes 18 are positioned on the filter bottom below it and extend perpendicular to the underdrain laterals. The flumes 18 may be formed in concrete 21 which underlies the filter. Drain pipes 22 extend through the underdrain lateral bottom 20 and are open at their top and bottom ends. Each lateral has at least one drain pipe 22. The bottom ends of the pipes 22 open in the flumes 18 to allow the filtered liquid to flow into the flumes” (see US 370 col 2 lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 4, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses a plurality of vanes positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 discloses at least one vane is positioned perpendicular to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 discloses at least one vane is positioned parallel to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 discloses at least one vane is positioned at an angle relative to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 discloses the plurality of vanes are each positioned at one or more angles relative to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 discloses the plurality of vanes are positioned along a longitudinal length of the underdrain (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, US 370 discloses a flume plate or tubular member positioned in the trench for directing fluid flow (see rejection of claims 24 and 3).
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 370 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of https://yizewiremesh.en.made-in-china.com/product/CwQfROTAXFYh/China-Small-Hole-Perforated-Metal-Wire-Mesh-Perforated-Stainless-Steel-Sheet-Perforated-Metal-Sheet-for-Fencing.html (published August 15, 2012; retrieved on October 20, 2025) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 52, US 370 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the first filtration member is a perforated plate (see US 370 figures 1 & 4 and col 3 lines 11-18 & 32-36 & 53-64).
Further, US 370 does not disclose the first filtration member comprises a wire mesh screen.
NPL discloses a perforated metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet that can be used for filtration (see NPL page 1 & 2). NPL discloses that the advantage of the perforated metal wire mesh sheet is that it is durable, can be readily formed and selection of hole size patterns and configuration (see NPL page 3).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. filtration, mesh material/perforated material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because US 370 discloses a perforated plate is needed but does not give any guidance on the material and NPL discloses using a perforated metal wire mesh sheet for filtration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist with allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
Hence, US 370 in view of NPL is deemed to disclose the first filtration member comprises a wire mesh screen.
Regarding claim 53, US 370 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 52. Further, US 370 in view of NPL discloses the second filtration member comprises a perforated plate (see rejection of claim 52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the upper and lower plates of the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because US 370 discloses a perforated plate is needed but does not give any guidance on the material and NPL discloses using a perforated metal wire mesh sheet for filtration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the upper and lower plates of the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the upper and lower plates of the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute and/or modify the upper and lower plates of the perforated plate of US 370 with the metal wire mesh perforated stainless steel sheet, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist with allowing water to flow through and/or to retain the media particles.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 in view of NPL by selecting the first filtration member and the second filtration member to have different screen types, as recited in claim 24, to have the first filtration member comprises a wire mesh screen, as recited in claim 52, and to have the second filtration member comprises a perforated plate, as recited in claim 53, because US 370 discloses a perforated plate is needed, needs to be offset or staggered and can have different shape(s), size and/or shape pores/holes, and NPL discloses various options for each filtration member and one of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify US 370 in view of NPL by selecting a filtration member that can achieve the needs of US 370 and assist with filtering fluid and/or assist with the retaining of media particles.
Rejections based on US 5976370 in view of US5019259
Claims 24, 26, 54, 55, 1, 3-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5976370 (hereinafter US 370) in view of US 5019259 (hereinafter US 259).
Regarding claim 24, US 370 discloses an underdrain system that retains filter media and allows liquid, such as water, to pass through the medica, the drain and into the ground (see US 370 abstract, figures 2-5 and col 1 lines 36-41), which is deemed an underdrain apparatus.
US 370 discloses “filter media particles rest on a pair of perforated plates which are spaced apart by a spacer having a thickness less than the size of the media particles” (see US 370 col 1 lines 46-49; see also US 370 col 2 lines 38-50 and figures 2-5). US 370 discloses that the places may have a curved shape (see US 370 col 2 lines 47-50), which is deemed a curved upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid, the curved upper structure configured to support an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure, 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 and a second filtration member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate.
US 370 discloses that the upper plate may be flat, bent or curved (see US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1). Hence, US 370 is deemed to disclose a curved upper structure.
While US 370 does not disclose a single embodiment of a curved upper structure, as recited in claim 24, US 370 does disclose all of the features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 370 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 24, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 370 intended, i.e. filter liquid and/or retain media.
US 370 discloses the system comprises a “bottom plate has a corresponding underlying grid having two perforations centered on the other diagonal, thus offsetting the bottom perforations from the top perforations” (see US 370 col 1 lines 51-54), that the “bottom of each underdrain lateral is formed by a flat, horizontal plate 20 supported on the filter bottom 16. The flumes 18 are positioned on the filter bottom below it and extend perpendicular to the underdrain laterals. The flumes 18 may be formed in concrete 21 which underlies the filter” (see US 370 col 28-33) and that between the upper perforated plate and the bottom an area (46) is formed (see US 370 figure 3; col 3 lines 38-52), which is deemed 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.
US 370 discloses “[I]n use, the liquid that is to be filtered is introduced into the top portion of the filter chamber 12 and flows downwardly through the media particles 30 under the influence of gravity, vacuum or pressure. The filter media filters out impurities from the liquid and allows the liquid to filter through the particles to the plates 24 and 26. The liquid is able to flow through the perforations 42 in the upper plate and to flow between the plates and through the perforations 44 in the same grid of the lower plate 26. In this manner, the filtered liquid is able to flow into the area 46 above the filter bottom 16 and beneath the lower plates 26. When the liquid level on floor 18 builds up to the level of the open top end of the drain pipe 22, the liquid flows into the flume 18 through the drain pipe. Thus, the liquid is filtered by the media particles 30 and is able to flow out through the drain pipe 22” (see US 370 col 3 lines 38-52; see also US 370 figures 2-5; col 4 lines 9-12), which is deemed the curved upper structure, the flat bottom plate and the second filtration 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.
US 370 discloses that the “individual plates 24 and 26 are flat, bent or curved plates, and the lower plates 26 are parallel to and spaced closely below the corresponding upper plates 24” (see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1). US 370 discloses that the perforations of the upper plate and the lower plate “may have any suitable size and shape” (see US 370 col 3 lines 34-35). US 370 discloses that the perforations of the upper plate and the lower plate are offset or staggered from one another (see US 370 col 3 lines 32-34; see also US 370 figure 1 and col 3 lines 56-57 (US 370 discloses that “Because of the offset or staggered arrangement of the openings 42 and 44, any material that passes through both openings 42 and 44 must also pass through the space between the plates 24 and 26. This space is smaller than the minimum particle size, so the particles 30 are unable to pass through it and reach the bottom perforations 44. Consequently, the media particles 30 are retained in the filter compartment 12 and are not washed into the drain system along with the filtered liquid” (see US 370 col 3 lines 56-64).).
US 370 does not disclose the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types.
US 259 discloses a filter underdrain apparatus (see US 259 abstract, figures 1, 4, 11, 15-18, 21-24 and 279). US 259 discloses the apparatus comprises a screen means for screening liquid and keeping filter media exterior to the apparatus (see US 259 col 2 lines 25-54; figures 11 and 23; claims 17 and 18 (US 259 discloses “screen means are provided for screening the liquid and gas orifices from filter media exterior of the distributor conduits, which screen means may comprise perforate grid means, and which perforate grid means may extend across the trough between adjacent distributor conduits” (see US 259 col 2 lines 49-54).). US 259 discloses the grid/screen means is rectangular plates, each with a plurality of openings therein and comprises a mesh screen in between said plates (see US 259 figures 1, 3, 8-11 and 22-24; col 6 lines 16-22 & 28-31; col 8 lines 1-4). US 259 discloses a laminated perforated screen means comprising a stainless steel mesh in between an upper grid and a lower grid (see US 259 col 6 lines 28-31; col 8 lines 1-4 and figures 11 and 23). US 259 discloses a “laminated perforated structure similar to that of FIG. 11 includes stainless steel mesh 96 sandwiched between grids 90 and 97 to act as a retainer for fine media with no necessity for gravel barrier layering” (see US 259 col 8 lines 1-4).).
US 259 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 US 370 by incorporating a stainless steel mesh, as disclosed in US 259, in between the upper plate and lower plate, as disclosed in US 370 and US 259, because it would assist with filtering water and/or because it would assist with retaining filter media particles, as disclosed in US 370 and US 259; and/or because it would assist with acting as a retainer for fine media with no necessity for gravel barrier layering, as disclosed in US 259.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 370 by incorporating a stainless steel mesh, as disclosed in US 259, in between the upper plate and lower plate, as disclosed in US 370 and US 259, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter water and/or retainer media particles.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “different screen types” is understood to be the first filtration member and the second filtration member must have a difference in at least one aspect of the screen, such as a difference in the sizing or shape of the pores/holes of the screen, i.e. coarse, fine; a difference form of the screen, i.e. wedge wire screen, perforated plate, mesh screen; or a difference in material to form the screen, i.e. stainless steel, ceramic, plastic.
Herein, the mesh screen of US 370 in view of US 259 may be understood as either the first filtration member or the second filtration member with the remaining filtration member being either the upper or lower pate, respectively, as disclosed in US 370.
Hence, US 370 in view of US 259 is deemed to disclose an underdrain apparatus, comprising a curved upper structure for filtering particulates from a fluid, the curved upper structure configured to support an external filter media surrounding the curved upper structure, 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; 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 and a second filtration member positioned in the interior between the first filtration member and the flat bottom plate, wherein the curved upper structure, the flat bottom plate and the second filtration 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 and wherein the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types.
Regarding claim 25, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses that the upper plate and lower plate have an offset pattern and that the individual plates may have a bent, flat or curved structure (see rejection of claim 24; see US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1;).
US 370 in view of US 259 does not disclose 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.
While US 370 in view of US 259 does not disclose a single embodiment of cross-flow membrane filtration channel, as recited in claim 25, US 370 in view of US 259 does disclose all of the features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. That is, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses that the upper plate may have a curved shape and the lower plate may have a different shape, such as a bent or flat shape, and/or may have an offset configuration of perforation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 370 in view of US 259 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 25, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 370 in view of US 259 intended, i.e. filter liquid and/or retain media.
Regarding claim 26, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the second filtration member has a cross-sectional shape selected from the list consisting of w-shaped, v-shaped, concave and convex (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see also US 370 col 1 lines 57-61; col 3 lines 53-57; col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1).
US 370 in view of US 259 does not disclose the lower plate has a cross-sectional shape selected from the list consisting of concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped and v-shaped.
Nevertheless, 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 shape of the lower plate in US 370 in view of US 259 to be a shape that would assist with allowing fluid to travel through the system while retaining the media.
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 shape of the lower plate in US 370 in view of US 259 to be a shape, such as concave, convex, z-shaped, s-shaped w-shaped and v-shaped, because 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. Herein, the change in shape would yield the predictable result of allowing fluid to travel through the system and/or retain media.
Regarding claim 54, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the second filtration member is coupled to the first filtration member, said second filtration member supporting the first filtration member (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 8 (US 370 discloses that spacers 36 and 38 are sandwich between and secured to each of the upper plate and the lower plate).).
Regarding claim 55, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the second filtration member is positioned a distance away from the first filtration member (see rejection of claim 54).
Regarding claim 1, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses a flow control vane positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claims 24 and 25; see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 8 (US 370 discloses that spacers 36 and 38, which are sandwich between the upper plate and the lower plate, will necessarily affect the flow of fluid traveling from above the upper plate to the bottom).
Regarding claim 3, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the flat bottom plate further comprises an opening for draining fluid into the trench (see rejection of claim 24).
US 370 in view of US 259 discloses that the “flumes 18 are positioned on the filter bottom below it and extend perpendicular to the underdrain laterals. The flumes 18 may be formed in concrete 21 which underlies the filter. Drain pipes 22 extend through the underdrain lateral bottom 20 and are open at their top and bottom ends. Each lateral has at least one drain pipe 22. The bottom ends of the pipes 22 open in the flumes 18 to allow the filtered liquid to flow into the flumes” (see US 370 col 2 lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 4, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses a plurality of vanes positioned between the curved upper structure and the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses at least one vane is positioned perpendicular to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses at least one vane is positioned parallel to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses at least one vane is positioned at an angle relative to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the plurality of vanes are each positioned at one or more angles relative to the flat bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the plurality of vanes are positioned along a longitudinal length of the underdrain (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses a flume plate or tubular member positioned in the trench for directing fluid flow (see rejection of claims 24 and 3).
Regarding claim 52, US 370 in view of US 259 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 370 discloses the first filtration member comprises a wire mesh screen (see rejection of claim 24; see US 370 figures 1 & 4 and col 3 lines 11-18 & 32-36 & 53-64; see US 259 figures 11 and 23).
Regarding claim 53, US 370 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 52. Further, US 370 in view of NPL discloses the second filtration member comprises a perforated plate (see rejection of claims 24 and 52).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments as well as Request for Continued Examination, filed on January 28, 2026,have been fully considered.
The indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the obviousness rejection(s) have been considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
In the response, it was argued that the upper and lower plates of US 370 (Medworth) fails to render obvious the newly amended limitation, i.e. “the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types”, because “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable basis to otherwise modify Medworth to use different screen types for the upper and lower plates as this would lead to offset and spacing issues that are provided by the use of the same perforated plates in Medworth” (see Response page 10). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. First, it is unclear what “offset and spacing issues” are. It is noted that the “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (see MPEP 716.01, C, II). Second, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “different screen types” is understood to be the first filtration member and the second filtration member must have a difference in at least one aspect of the screen, such as a difference in the sizing or shape of the pores/holes of the screen, i.e. coarse, fine; a difference form of the screen, i.e. wedge wire screen, perforated plate, mesh screen; or a difference in material to form the screen, i.e. stainless steel, ceramic, plastic. As established above, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established for the claimed the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types. US 370 renders obvious having an upper plate and a lower plate having different shape pore/hole openings and/or different size pore/hole openings.
In the response, it was argued that US 370 teaches away from the claimed the first filtration member and the second filtration member define different screen types limitation (“To the contrary, a person of ordinary skill in the art would instead be taught away from making such a modification to Medworth for fear of negatively impacting filtration and backwash performance”) (see Response page 10). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. To constitute a teaching away, the prior art must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (see MPEP 2145, X, D, 1). US 370 does not disclose criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using two different screen types. Rather, US 370 discloses using differing pore/hole sizes and/or shapes as well as different shapes of each plate (see US 370 col 2 line 66 – col 3 line 1; col 3 lines 34-35).
In the response, with respect to claim 25, it was argued that “Medworth teaches away from the use of a second filtration member that has a cross-sectional shape that is different from a cross-sectional shape defined by a first filtration member as the use of different cross-sectional shapes would introduce issues with respect to perforation offsets and spacing as taught by Medworth” (see Response page 10). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. As noted above, it is unclear what “introduce issues” means, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established above, and US 370 does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (see MPEP 2145, X, D, 1).
In the response, it was argued that US 370 teaches away from “the use of a Vee-wire screen a claimed in amended claim 52” and teaches away from a Vee-wire(see Response pages 10-11). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. Claim 52 recites “the first filtration member comprises a wire mesh screen”.
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
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