Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/624,984

FIRST FLUSH DIVERTER SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 05, 2022
Examiner
GONZALEZ, MADELINE
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Solución Pluvial S A De C V
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
583 granted / 805 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 805 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Status Claims 1-20, 22-23, 29-31 and 36-41 have been cancelled. Claims 21, 24-28, 32-35 and 42-44 are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 21, 24-28, 32-35 and 42-44 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sistema Residencial Manual de Instalacion, Isla Urbana [hereinafter Isla] [cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on January 5, 2022] in view of Gerteis (US 5,169,525). With respect to claim 21, Isla discloses a system, as shown in the figure on page 01, having: at least one diverter container 3, wherein said container 3 has a height and maximum volumetric capacity, as shown in the figure on page 01, wherein the container 3 includes a lower part and an upper part, the lower part having at least one water outlet valve that is coupled, as shown in the figures on page 09, and the upper part having an inlet defined by an orifice having a predetermined area and shape, as shown in the figure on page 01; a pipe 5 vertically coupled to the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07, the pipe 5 including a length at least partially similar to the height of the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07, and including an area and shape substantially equal to the water inlet of the container 3, permitting the pipe 5 to be vertically inserted in said inlet of the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07, with a lower end of the pipe remaining inside and adjacent to the lower part of the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07, an upper end of the pipe being at the top of the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07; and a body of the pipe intermediate the lower and upper ends of the pipe and remaining inside the container 3, such that the pipe operates as an inlet pipe, as shown in the figure on page 7; and at least one three-way connection 4, as shown in the figure on page 07, with a first, a second and a third connection, wherein the first and second connections are coupled to a main pipeline horizontally, wherein the water is running in a direction from the first connection to the second connection, as shown in the figure on page 01, such that the third connection is coupled the upper end of the pipe 5, wherein the second connection is connected to a water deposit 6, wherein a non-diverted water is deposited, as shown in the figure on page 01, and wherein the three-way connection is above both the water deposit 6 and the container 3, as shown in the figures on pages 01 and 07; wherein the body of the pipe 5 includes at least one perforation that defines an additional air vent, as shown on page 08, the additional air vent being made at a predetermined height of the pipe 5, as shown in the three bottom figures on page 08, thus defining a saturation point, wherein said saturation point corresponds to a predetermined volume of water to be diverted, thus defining diverted water, such that the closer the additional air vent is positioned relative to the upper part of the container 3 the closer the predetermined volume of diverted water will be to the maximum volumetric capacity of the container 3, as shown in the three figures on page 08. Isla lacks the pipe coupled to the container via hermetic coupling; the pipe operating both as an inlet pipe and as an air vent for the container; the third connection being hermetically coupled the upper end of the pipe; and the hermetic coupling of the pipe with the container further allows the pipe to slide, either when at least partially pulled out or pushed into the container. With respect to the pipe coupled to the container via hermetic coupling; the third connection being hermetically coupled the upper end of the pipe; and the hermetic coupling of the pipe with the container further allows the pipe to slide, either when at least partially pulled out or pushed into the container: Gerteis discloses a filter centrifuge, as shown in Fig. 1, having a feed pipe 21 coupled to a drum 7 via hermetic coupling (see col. 2, lines 47-53). The feed pipe 21 is pushed through a squeeze valve 25, as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hermetic connection, as taught by Gerteis, between the pipe and the container and the third connection disclosed by Isla, in order to provide a sealed connection and avoid leakage between the connections. With respect to the pipe operating both as an inlet pipe and as an air vent for the container: This limitation has been considered to be a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Isla teaches all the claimed structure for the pipe and therefore, it is inherent and or obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use. With respect to claim 24, Isla lacks wherein the third connection is coupled to at least two diverter containers. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to increase the amount of water collected and since to provide a second diverter container is considered to be a duplication of parts, and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). With respect to claim 25, Isla as modified by Gerteis lacks wherein the third connection is coupled to the at least two diverter containers via a distribution pipeline. However, this would be obvious in order to provide a connecting means to the container and direct the water to the containers. With respect to claim 26, Isla discloses wherein the operating diameter of the three-way connection 4 is greater than the operating diameter of the main pipeline 1, as shown in the figure on page 07. With respect to claim 27, Isla discloses wherein the diverter container 3 comprises a form with a cavity, as shown in the figure on page 07. With respect to claim 28, Isla as modified by Gerteis discloses wherein the hermetic coupling of the pipe with the container is via a valve 25 (sealing ring). With respect to claim 32, Isla discloses wherein the first connection and the second connection of the three-way connection 4 are horizontally coupled to the main pipeline 1 via eccentric reductions 3, as shown in the figure on page 07. With respect to claim 33, Isla discloses wherein the eccentric reduction 3 of the second connection is oriented upwardly, as shown in the figure on page 07. With respect to claim 34, Isla discloses wherein the eccentric reduction 3 of the first connection is oriented downwardly, as shown in the figure on page 07. With respect to claim 35, Isla discloses whrein the water outlet valve of the diverter container 3 comprises the stages: open, closed and partially closed, as shown in the figures on pages 09-10. With respect to claim 42, Isla discloses wherein the non-diverted water is deposited by gravity at a lowest part of the water deposit 6 by means of a vertical pipeline, wherein a lowest end of the vertical pipeline further includes a turbulence reducer 7, as shown in the figure on page 01. With respect to claim 43, Isla discloses wherein the second connection further includes a leaf filter 4, as shown in the figure on page 01. With respect to claim 44, Isla as modified by Gerteis lacks wherein the maximum volumetric capacity of the container is selected from the list of: 40+5 and 200+20 liters. However, the specific volumetric capacity claimed by applicant, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on July 10, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Gerteis lacks a vertically oriented pipe, as claimed in amended claim 21: This argument is not persuasive. Isla teaches a pipe 5 vertically coupled to the container 3, as shown in the figure on page 07. Gerteis has been used as a reference for its teaching of a hermetic coupling for connecting a pipe, as stated above. In response to applicant’s argument that Isla lacks the pipe functioning as an inlet pipe and an air vent, as required by amended claim 21: This argument is not persuasive. Isla teaches the pipe 5 that functions as an inlet pipe, as shown in the figure on page 07. Furthermore, this new limitation has been considered to be a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Isla teaches all the claimed structure for the pipe and therefore, it is inherent and or obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use. With respect to applicant’s argument that claim 21 requires that the three-way connection is above both the container and the water deposit and an additional air vent provided by the perforation at a particular height: Isla teaches these new limitations, as stated above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30. 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, Magali P Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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. /MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 12, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594513
ROTATABLE FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594527
METHOD OF MAKING A CARTRIDGE FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589329
FLUID SEPARATION WITH SAMPLING UNIT SELECTIVELY COUPLING UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF SEPARATION UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582928
FILTER CARTRIDGE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576348
Advanced Fuel Filtration System with Interlocking Cartridge Seal Design
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+15.6%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 805 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month