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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have not addressed every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/25/2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 11 recite “wherein ends of the filtering mesh form a predetermined mesh curve along which the filtering mesh moves when the at least two elongated pulleys rotate”
It is unclear whether there is another filtering mesh which moves along the first curved filtering mesh or whether it is meant that the end of the filtering mesh forms a curved trajectory that is followed or maintained by the filtering mesh under the condition that the at least two elongated pulleys rotate.
Examiner respectfully requests clarification.
Examiner interprets the ends of the filtering mesh form a curve-shaped trajectory under the condition that the at least two elongated pulleys are rotating, and the filtering mesh follows the curved trajectory in such a manner that the filtering mesh becomes a curve-shaped filtering mesh.
Claim(s) 2-10 depend(s) on claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim(s) 12-20 depend(s) on claim 11 and are also rejected.
Claim 7 and 17 recite “The filter device of claim 1, further comprising a driving assembly attached to the casing and external thereto, wherein the driving assembly is coupled to and adapted to rotate at least one elongated pulley to thereby drive and rotate the filtering mesh about the at least two elongated pulleys.
Claim 1 and 11 recite “at least two elongated pulleys rotatably supported within the casing between the first face and the second face of the casing”
It is unclear whether “at least one elongated pulley” refers to at least one of the at least two elongated pulleys of claim 1 that are rotatably supported within the casing.
If the elongated pulley of claims 7 and 17 are the same as 1 and 11, respectively, given “a driving assembly attached to the casing and external thereto” and is adapted to “rotate at least one elongated pulley”, it is unclear how the assembly external to the casing is coupled to the elongated pulleys rotatably supported within the casing.
Examiner respectfully requests clarification.
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “at least one elongated pulley” of claims 7 and 17 as the same elongated pulleys of claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 depend(s) on claims 7 and 17 and are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DVS (DVS-Filtertechnick Product Catalog. 2018.), in view of Rupp (DE202005001395U1),as evidenced by CL65 (DVS. CL65 - combi filter. 2021). An annotated figure of DVS p 8 is included for ease of reference.
Figure 1. Filtering system of DVS annotated with legend.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, DVS teaches a filter device (“These combifilters have bio-rooms”, p 8 Col 1 Extra information) comprising:
a casing (See Figure 1 above at least F1, LF, and F2) comprising a first face (F1, See Figure 1 above), a second face (F2, See Figure 1 above) and at least one lateral face positioned between the first face and the second face and perpendicular thereto (“Strain Panel”, P 8 Col 2; LF, See Figure 1 above).
While DVS does not teach at least two elongated pulleys, DVS provides the following motivation for maximizing filtering area based on at least a shape of the predetermined mesh curve:
“Filtration systems designed and developed…the ultimate tool to maintain their pond in the most easy and effective way” (DVS p2 Col1 ¶1), providing motivation for design optimization for effective filtration.
“range of models…for the smaller ponds and for those who have less possibilities or space…highlight model can however cope with 100 tons an hour... And can easily be put on ponds up to 200.000 liters of water, including fish! In between our ECO model and the Giant 100 ton model, we have a range of models, which will also come up to your needs and wishes.” (DVS p 2 Col 2 ¶6), providing motivation for altering filter capacity and capabilities to meet the design need of the user.
DVS embodiments support unique filtering areas based on shape of the predetermined mesh curve, given unique drum diameters (at least “Diameter of drum 40 cm x 40”, DVS p 6 Col 2 or “Diameter of drum 60 cm x 50”, DVS p 14 Col 2), the available filtering area being further customizable given “Turn / flushing time adjustable” (DVS p 14 Col 2).
MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) teaches “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions”
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) teaches “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled”.
However, Rupp teaches at least two elongated pulleys rotatably supported within a casing
between a first face and a second face of the casing (p 12 Elements 41 and 42; “Above the filter drum 30 and parallel to it, a take-up roller 41 and a discharge roller 42 are rotatably mounted in the housing 10”, [0020], suggesting analogy to arrangement between F1 and F2 of DVS); and
a filtering mesh threaded on the at least two elongated pulleys to define an interior of the filtering mesh (“Delivery roller 42 and take-up roller 41 serve to provide and convey a filter belt 40 which, between delivery roller 42 and take-up roller 41, wraps around the filter drum 30 around the essential part of its circumference with the aid of deflection rollers 41A, 42A”, [0020], teaching that the filter drum lies within the interior of the mesh); wherein ends of the filtering mesh form a predetermined mesh curve along which the filtering mesh moves when the at least two elongated pulleys rotate (p 12; “Delivery roller 42 and take-up roller 41 serve to provide and convey a filter belt 40 which, between delivery roller 42 and take-up roller 41, wraps around the filter drum 30”, [0020]).
DVS is considered analogous art because DVS is in the same field of rotatably mounted filter devices within filter systems.
Rupp is considered analogous art because Rupp is in the same field of rotatably mounted belt and pulley systems for filtering meshes threaded around elongated pulleys in combination with gridlike structures that facilitate rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that incorporating pulley system of Rupp and threading the filtering belt of Rupp through the pulleys of Rupp, between the spraybar and drum of DVS (DVS p 8 Col 2), which is to say around the interior filtration element (drum) of DVS, would provide expected results of rotational filtration. Furthermore, were the rotating paddle wheel (50) of Rupp [0050] also incorporated into DVS beneath drainage outlet O (See Figure 1 above), an additional measure of liquid control could be added in case of sensor or primary rotary drive system malfunction or maintenance. Doing so combines the straining surface of DVS with the filtering surface of Rupp, which itself was combined with a straining surface within the Rupp teachings, and “also offers optical attractions due to the technical design being based on a mill wheel” (Rupp [0028]), which would be aesthetically beneficial to a pond or pool application.
Furthermore, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at filtering areas maximized for “the ultimate tool to maintain their pond in the most…effective way” (DVS p 2 ¶1), while adapting to the unique design needs and/or limitations of the user “range of models…for the smaller ponds and for those who have less possibilities or space… up to 200.000 liters of water, including fish” (DVS p 2 Col 2 ¶6) and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, given DVS embodiments of larger diameter (at least DVS p 14) list filtration capabilities (at least DVS p 14 Col 2 Table) across similar environments to those filters with smaller diameter (at least DVS p 6 Col 2 Table).
Regarding Claim 11, DVS also teaches a filtering system comprising: a housing; and a filter device removably mountable within the housing (“CL 65”, p 8).
Claim(s) 12-20 depend(s) on claim 11 and are also rejected.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, modified DVS teaches a washing tube mounted within the casing (“Spraybar”, p 8 Col 2) and external to the interior of the filtering mesh (spraybar of DVS p 8 is external to the interior filtering element of DVS, which is to say the drum), wherein the washing tube extending between the first face and the second face of the casing and comprising injection apertures facing the filtering element through which a washing water may be injected onto the filtering mesh (DVS p 8 images of spraybar and apertures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that incorporating pulley system of Rupp and threading the filtering belt of Rupp through the pulleys of Rupp, between the spraybar and drum of DVS (DVS p 8 Col 2), which is to say around the interior filtration element (drum) of DVS, would provide expected results of enabling washing the filtering surface.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 depend on claims 2 and 12 and are also rejected.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, DVS teaches the washing tube is mounted substantially adjacent to the straining surface (Images of p 8). While DVS is silent on the quantitative distance of the washing tube from the surface, DVS does teach a drum diameter of 60 cm x 50 cm. CL65 expounds on the filter system dimensions with illustrative evidence of centimeter-scale dimensions. CL65 schematic evidence combined with the photographs of DVS suggest close proximity between washing apertures and straining surface.
Rupp teaches the filtering mesh is in direct contact with the straining surface [0020].
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use centimeter-scale distances as suggested in DVS and evidenced by CL65 to facilitate filter cleaning on an appropriate scale as needed.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, While DVS is silent on the quantitative diameter values of washing tube, DVS teaches a range of apertures on the washing tubes of p. 8, from five to at least 6. DVS also teaches the drum is 50 cm wide (p. 8 Col 2) and the apertures are visually evenly dispersed across that width, putting the aperture distances in the single-digit centimeter range, taking into account the fact that the apertures themselves have some value of width.
DVS also provides parameters for the maximum capacity of water flow to be cleaned (p. 8 Col 2 table) and spraybar pressure (“40 bar”, p. 8 Col 2) to be applied to the filtering surface to maintain appropriate cleaning, with rinse level adjustable and turn/flushing time adjustable (p. 8 Col 2). DVS thus provides motivation for optimizing the cleaning regimen to suit the capacity and needs of the system and its application (Koi Pond differs from Fish Pond differs from Pond, no fish, p 8 Col 2).
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use appropriate washing tube diameter, aperture size, and aperture spacing at a size and scale effective to clean the centimeter-scale filtering surface as is needed in the applied environment.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, DVP teaches a drainage channel mounted within the interior of the filtering mesh and extending between the first face and the second face of the casing (DC of Figure 1 Above), wherein the drainage channel protrudes external to the casing (O of Figure 1 Above) through a drainage opening on one of the first face or the second face of the casing (I of Figure 1 Above).
Claims 6 and 16 depend on claims 5 and 15 and are also rejected.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, DVP teaches the drainage channel is mounted substantially adjacent to the filtering surface (as evidenced by CL65 Front View)
While DVS is silent on the quantitative distance between a base face of the drainage channel and the filtering surface, DVS also provides parameters for the maximum capacity of water flow to be cleaned (p. 8 Col 2 table) and spraybar pressure (“40 bar”, p. 8 Col 2) to be applied to the filtering surface to maintain appropriate cleaning, with rinse level adjustable (p. 8 Col 2). DVS thus provides motivation for optimizing to suit the capacity and needs of the system.
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use appropriate distance between the 40 bar-pressured washing tube and the drainage channel of DVS effective to capture the dislodged cake from the centimeter-scale filtering surface as is needed.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, modified DVS teaches a driving assembly attached to the casing and external thereto (DVS p 8 images), the driving assembly is coupled to (DVS p 8 images show the driving shaft connected to the drum, which in combination with the pulley system of Rupp p 12 connects the driving assembly to the elongated pulleys) and adapted to rotate at least one elongated pulley to thereby drive and rotate the filtering mesh about the at least two elongated pulleys (p 8 DVS and p 12 Rupp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that incorporating pulley system of Rupp and threading the filtering belt of Rupp through the pulleys of Rupp and around the drum of DVS (DVS p 8 Col 2) would incorporate the DVS drum into the Rupp pulley system and provide expected results of enabling extended clean filtering surface due to rotating the filtering mesh.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 depend(s) on claims 7 and 17 and are also rejected.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, modified DVS teaches the driving assembly comprises a rotational motor (DYS p 8 images) coupled to the at least one of the elongated pulleys (Rupp p 12 Elements 41 and 42) using at least one gear (Rupp p 12 Elements 41 and 42).
Rupp also teaches “The rotation of the impeller 50 is transmitted to the first pulley 31 via a gear 60, with a reduction ratio of, for example, 1:100”, [0023]. Adapting the inlet side of the casing of DVS with the impeller and gear system of Rupp would provide an alternate rotation mechanism for adjusting torque.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that incorporating pulley system of Rupp and threading the filtering belt of Rupp through the pulleys of Rupp, around the drum of DVS (DVS p 8 Col 2), would provide expected results of rotational filtration. Furthermore, by adopting the rotating paddle wheel (50) of Rupp [0050] into DVS beneath drainage outlet O (See Figure 1 above), an additional measure of liquid control could be added in case of sensor or primary rotary drive system malfunction or maintenance. Doing so “also offers optical attractions due to the technical design being based on a mill wheel” (Rupp [0028]), which would be aesthetically beneficial to a pond or pool application.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, modified DVS teaches at least one inlet opening on the first face of the casing through which water may be introduced into the interior of the filtering mesh (See Figure 1 Element I above).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Examiner interprets “a gridlike structure adapted to support the filtering mesh and to enable rotation of the filtering mesh” in light of claims 1 and 11, respectively on which they depend. Claims 1 and 11 recite “elongated pulleys rotatably supported within the casing” and “a filtering mesh threaded on at least some of the elongated pulleys”. Thus, Examiner interprets the casing, by rotatably supporting the elongated pulley, thus is by extension configured to support the mesh threaded on the pulley, namely via the gridlike lateral face.
Modified DVP teaches the at least one lateral face of the casing is a gridlike structure (See Figure 1 LF Above) adapted to support the filtering mesh and to enable rotation of the filtering mesh about the at least some of the elongated pulleys (Rupp [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/25/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reasoning and teaching applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “neither DVS nor Rupp, alone or in combination, describes "a filter device removably mountable within the housing" as required by amended independent claim 11” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 3, para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that “such removable filter, which allows repair or replacement of internal components, is not possible with the combination of DVS and/or Rupp since the filter of DVS and/or Rupp is not removable” (Applicant’s Remarks p 3 ¶6), Examiner notes in DVS p 8 Col 2: “All components built into modules and thus quickly interchangeable”.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C) teaches “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to make the filter module of CVS removable to obtain access and to allow that component to be “quickly interchangeable” (DVS p 8 Col 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2963161-A, US-3206035-A, US-3310174-A, US-3575850-A, US-2247460-A, US-5139670-A, EA-008724-B1, KR-101387714-B1, DE 102011083105 B3
AquaForte_Drumfilter_Manual_2016, AquaForte_Drumfilter_2018, Sea Side Aquatics. C22_2019
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.
/MARRIAH ELLINGTON/
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773