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
Rejected Claims: 1-3, 5-21, and 25-37
Cancelled Claims: 4 and 22-24
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 16 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 15, 26-27, 29, and 36 and the addition of new claim 37 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 15, 26-27, and 29, the previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 36, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been added.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have had their basis for rejection modified, but are otherwise unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 16 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Patrick does not teach the newly amended limitations of instant claims 1 and 36, requiring an end of the permeable fabric structure to be attached to the reservoir while the body of the permeable fabric structure is spaced apart from other surfaces and free to flex and so instant claims 1 and 36 are allowable (Arguments filed 16 JANUARY 2026, Page 8 to Page 10, Paragraph 4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 1 and 36 have been 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. Instant claims 1 and 36 are not allowable.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-3, 5-21, and 25-35 are allowable because instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 16 JANUARY 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 5 to Page 11, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 1 is not allowable and so instant claims 2-3, 5-21, and 25-35 are also not allowable.
Applicant argues that Patrick teaches away from the instant invention because Patrick teaches to trap particulates within the permeable fabric in order to prevent the particulates form reaching the next layers of the filter cartridge while the instant invention teaches a configuration for flexing such that the particulates are not trapped within the permeable fabric. Furthermore, Patrick teaches tightly wound fabric which would collapse without support and be rendered inoperable. Therefore Patrick is not proper for use in an obviousness rejection and instant claims 1 and 36 are allowable (Arguments filed 16 JANUARY 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 3 to Page 12, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Patrick teaches that the purpose of the biocidal yarn is to prevent the next layers of filters from being plugged. Patrick does not teach that the yarn or fabric cannot be supported in another fashion. Katz teaches an inlet device with fabric supported on the edges only and coated with a material that will prevent marine life from attaching to it. This combination shows that the edges of the fabric may be supported away from the other filters and it will still accomplish the same goals as before. Therefore, while Patrick teaches a different solution, Patrick does not teach that other solutions will not function appropriately and so Patrick may be used in an obviousness rejection and instant claims 1 and 36 are not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 20, that Costas teaches an impermeable fabric hanging down from floats and so it would render Patrick inoperable because the fabric would not let water freely flow through the fabric and into the water system and therefore instant claim 20 is allowable (Arguments filed 16 JANUARY 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 3 to Page 13, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Costas is not used to teach an alternative fabric. Costas is used to teach an alternative method of deploying the fabric of Patrick in view of Katz involving hanging the fabric down from a floatable device, rather than having the floatable device being in another location as Katz teaches. The particular fabric of Costas is not relevant because Costas is used to solve the problem of open water deployment with a floatable device. Therefore, Costas would not render Patrick in view of Katz inoperable and instant claim 20 is not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claims 30 and 32, that Steele does not disclose the flexibility of the steel plates and that the combination of Patrick with Steele would result in the prevention of flow entirely or would allow contaminants to pass through the filter and so would render Patrick inoperable. Therefore, instant claims 30 and 32 are allowable (Arguments filed 16 JANUARY 2026, Page 13, Paragraph 2 to Page 14).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, flexibility is a generic term and steel plates are known to flex with force applied rather than shattering or otherwise breaking. Furthermore, the new combination of Patrick in view of Katz renders combinability argument moot as Katz teaches an expanded reservoir wherein the fabric forms walls spaced from an inlet pipe containing another filter. As such, there would be space inside the reservoir for the steel plates and flow would not be restricted and the fabric filter layer would not be compromised. Therefore, instant claim 30 and 32 are not allowable.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; therefore, all limitations wholly directed to the water system have no patentable weight. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume Applicant intended to positively recite the limitations pertaining to the water system as components or elements of the claimed inventive device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of pores are sized to enable free flow of the water between the outer surface and the inner surface, wherein the first end of the permeable fabric structure is attached to the reservoir such that the body of the permeable fabric structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least an inner surface and an outer surface of a first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that the first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure is free to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores” and claim 36 recites the limitation “wherein the stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least the outer surface and the inner surface of a portion of the stand-alone 3- dimensional flexible structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is free to flex the outer surface and the inner surface in both inward and outward directions when the water flows within the plurality of pores” with guidance from Applicant’s arguments filed 12/20/2024, Page 10 that the “flexibly mounted” and “is free to flex” limitations are described in the following paragraphs of the instant specification:
[0183] In various embodiments, the presence of numerous small fibers in the permeable material of a system can provide a substantial increase in the complexity of the 3-dimensional structure of the material, as these structures can extend into and/or around open interstices in the woven pattern. This arrangement of fibers can further provide a more tortuous path for organisms trying to traverse the depth of the structure and enter the internal environment protected by the enclosure, and/or or may provide a much higher surface area of the structure to which the optional biocide coating may adhere. In various embodiments, it has been determined that spun polyester has highly desirable characteristics as an enclosure material, as the shape and/or size of the 3-dimensonal "entry paths" into the enclosure (i.e., as the microorganisms pass through the openings and/or pores of the material) will desirably provide a longer pathway, a larger surface area and/or may prove more effective in impeding the flow of fouling organisms into the enclosure and/or retaining larger amounts of biocide coating therein.
[0303] In a similar manner, various embodiments of the enclosure will desirably incorporate permeable and/or flexible attachment mechanisms and/or closures, such that relatively hard, unbroken and/or impermeable surfaces will desirably not be presented externally to the surrounding aqueous environment by the enclosure. In many cases, biofouling entities may prefer a hard, unbroken surface for settlement and/or colonization, which can provide such entities a "foothold" for subsequent colonization on adjacent flexible structure sections such as those of the enclosures described herein. By reducing the potential for such "foothold" locations, many of the disclosed enclosure designs can significantly improve the biofouling resistance of various of the disclosed embodiments and/or the substrate protection provided thereof. In at least one embodiment, an enclosure can be particularized for a substrate that is made as a single construction with no seams and/or no impermeable wall sections.
The Examiner notes that paragraph 0183 describes fibers extending into and around the open interstices in the woven pattern as being important characteristics and that paragraph 0303 describes hard, unbroken, and/or impermeable surfaces as being undesirable characteristics in which biofouling entities prefer for colonization and that permeable and/or flexible attachment mechanisms are preferred to reduce “foothold” locations for biofouling entities.
Claim 18 recites the term “water chemistry of the water”. Claim 27 further recites “first chemistry” and “second chemistry” with respect to water. As defined in the Specification p0251, “water chemistry” is described as:
Some exemplary water chemistry features that could potentially be "different" and/or which might remain the same (i.e., depending upon enclosure design and/or other environmental factors such as location and/or season) can include dissolved oxygen, pH, total dissolved nitrogen, ammonium, nitrates, nitrites, orthophosphates, total dissolved phosphates, silica, salinity, temperature, turbidity, chlorophyll, etc.
Thus, the Examiner will consider “water chemistry” to include at least these elements listed above.
Claims 35 and 36 recite the term “stand-alone”. There is no explicit definition in the specification for “stand-alone”, and thus the common definition of being intended, designed or able to be used or to function alone or separately will be considered regarding the interpretation of claims 35 and 36.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 37, “outer surfaces the first portion” in line 1 of the claim should read “outer surfaces of the first portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 14-19, 21, 25-28, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick US Patent No. 20080302713 A1 (hereinafter Patrick), in view of Katz US Patent No. 20170349455 A1 (hereinafter Katz).
Regarding Claim 1, Patrick teaches an antimicrobial filter cartridge to remove bacteria and other contaminants from water and which prevents the growth of bacterial and other microorganisms on the filter media (i.e., a device for reducing biofouling in a water system; Abstract);
the filter cartridge (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0016)
comprising a housing (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #23; Abstract);
with a core containing an outer wrapping comprising an anti-microbially and/or bactericidally treated yarn or sheath (i.e., at least one layer of a permeable fabric structure positioned within or defining a portion of a wall of the reservoir, wherein the permeable fabric structure defines a first end and a body, wherein the body comprises an outer surface, an inner surface and a plurality of pores extending therebetween, the permeable fabric structure having a biocide on or in one or more of the outer surface or the inner surface and extending within at least a portion of at least one of a plurality of pores; wherein the plurality of pores are sized to enable free flow of water between the outer surface and the inner surface; Fig. 1, #18, 20; Paragraph 0021);
and where the filter cartridge (Fig. 3, #10) supplies a water filtration system (i.e., wherein the treatment unit provides conditioned water from the reservoir to the water system, wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #24; Paragraph 0021),
and the water flows (Fig. 1, #25; Arrows) from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected and directed through the central passage to an outside collection and/or delivery means (i.e., the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system, wherein the biocide contacts at least some of the water entering into or within the reservoir of the treatment unit so as to aid in forming the conditioned water prior to the conditioned water traveling into the water system such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit; Paragraph 0028).
Patrick does not teach wherein the first end of the permeable fabric structure is attached to the reservoir such that the body of the permeable fabric structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least an inner surface and an outer surface of a first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that the first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure is free to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores.
However, Katz teaches that a first stage of filters can be operated with fine netting supported by plastic pillars (Fig. 4, #58; Paragraphs 0051 and 0063) wherein the walls (Fig. 3, #56) can be flexible (i.e., wherein the first end of the permeable fabric structure is attached to the reservoir such that the body of the permeable fabric structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least an inner surface and an outer surface of a first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that the first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure is free to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores; Paragraph 0059) and the mesh should be coated to prevent marine life attachment and sediment attachment (Paragraph 0064) and that the benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system is designed to efficiently handle large volumes of water flowing through the water purification system (Paragraph 0050). The walls of the inlet device taught by Katz are clearly able to flex with the flow of water.
Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus, system, and method to purify water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because the inlet device would be able to efficiently handle large volumes of water.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Patrick further teaches that the yarn can be comprised of polypropylene, nylon, cellulose acetate, rayon, lyocell, acrylic, polyester, and/or mixtures thereof (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure comprises a 3-dimensional flexible material selected from the group consisting of natural and synthetic fabrics, natural and synthetic membranes, natural and synthetic sheets, and fabrics, membranes, films and sheets made from a combination of natural and synthetic materials; Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 7, Katz further teaches that redundancy can be built into the water system by having recirculation tubing so that in the event of a filter failure the system can recirculate water that hasn’t been filtered properly back to a working filter (i.e., wherein the water system comprises a recirculation system; Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to add the filter cartridge taught by Patrick to the water system with a recirculating loop taught by Katz because the system would avoid be able to ensure unfiltered water does not leave the system in the event of a filter failure.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 7 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 9, Patrick further teaches that the water flows from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected (i.e., wherein the average dwell time is an average amount of time a molecule of the water spends within the reservoir between entering the reservoir and traveling into the water system; Paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is an average amount of time a molecule of the water spends within the reservoir between entering the reservoir and traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 10, Patrick further teaches that the water flows from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected (i.e., wherein the average dwell time is determined based on the volume of the reservoir divided by an average water flow rate into the water system determined over a period of an hour during operation of the water system; Paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is determined based on the volume of the reservoir divided by an average water flow rate into the water system determined over a period of an hour during operation of the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 14, Patrick further teaches that the yarn will be generally tightly applied about the core to define pores or flow passages therethrough (Paragraph 0024). Additionally, Patrick teaches that the wrapping of a tightly wound antimicrobial yarn about a composite core tube further helps ensure that substantially all of the surface of the central core is protected and that subsequent layers of antimicrobial treated yarns wound about the core help ensure that most of the particulate matter is trapped within the layers provided by the multiple wrappings of yarn (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the conditioned water does not pass through any of the plurality of pores of the permeable fabric structure; Paragraph 0025).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the conditioned water does not pass through any of the plurality of pores of the permeable fabric structure” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 15, Katz further teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir is a water intake for the water system; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., positioned within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., conditioned water; Paragraphs 0050-0051) from at least one pipe (i.e., to draw conditioned water from within the reservoir such that water from the body of water is pulled into the reservoir to fill the reservoir to replace the conditioned water taken through the water intake; Fig. 4, #38, 57; Paragraph 0059). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that water from the body of water is pulled into the reservoir to fill the reservoir to replace the conditioned water taken through the water intake” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 16, Katz further teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir is or defines an inlet; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., for the water from the body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow, which can be made of netting (i.e., the inlet comprises the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure such that the water from the body of water flows through the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure into the reservoir; Paragraph 0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Regarding Claim 17, Patrick further teaches that the yarn wound around the composite core can be replaced by other materials (Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Katz further teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow, which can be made of netting (i.e., the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure forms the inlet; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 18, Patrick further teaches that the core composite tube (Fig. 4, #12) is surrounded by the outer wrapping of yarn (Fig. 4, #27) and further contains a bactericidally treated (i.e., configured to adjust water chemistry of the water within the reservoir) fabric wrapping material (i.e., one or more treated structures; Fig. 4, #26) wrapped between the core and yarn layers (i.e., wherein the treatment unit further includes one or more treated structures that are positioned within the reservoir and configured to adjust water chemistry of the water within the reservoir; Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 19, Patrick further teaches that multiple layers of antimicrobial treated yarns wound around the core help ensure that most of the particulate matter, as well as some of the inactivated microorganisms, is distributed and trapped within the depth or layers (i.e., tortuous path) of the filter provided by these multiple wrappings of the yarn (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure comprises a plurality of permeable fabric structures positioned in a tortuous path leading to an outlet where the conditioned water is provided to the water system; Paragraph 0025).
Furthermore, the limitation “where the conditioned water is provided to the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 21, Katz teaches that inlet system (i.e., the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #36) consisting of multiple tubing surrounded by 10 mm fixed fishing nets (i.e., an enclosure; Page 14, Chart 1) at a depth of 200 feet (i.e., submerged completely within a body of water; Paragraph 0156). Katz also teaches that the inlets should close to the surface to obtain warmer water which is more favorable for reverse osmosis filter operation (Paragraph 0156) and the inlets can be moved lover when wave action is a concern or red algae is detected (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to avoid red algae coming into the filter by completely submerging the inlet system.
Regarding Claim 25, Katz further teaches that a plurality of mooring lines can connect the inlet system (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 3, #36) to the ocean floor (i.e., a bottom surface of the body of water; Fig. 3, #33) for the purpose of keeping the out walls taut even if they are flexible or in high energy environments (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 26, Katz further teaches at least one pipe or tubular (i.e., via one or more pipes; Fig. 3, #38) connecting the inlet device (i.e., water intake of; Fig. 3, #36) to the water purification apparatus and system (i.e., the water system; Paragraph 0050) where the method of filtration involves flowing water into an inlet device and pumping the water through a filtration system (i.e., a pump configured to draw conditioned water from within the reservoir to provide to the water system; Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 27, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., formed within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., first chemistry of the conditioned water is different than a second chemistry of water within the body of water; Paragraphs 0050-0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Regarding Claim 28, Patrick further teaches examples of existing anti-microbially treated fibers including silver coated nylon fibers and silver coated polyester fibers (i.e., wherein the biocide is within a coating applied to the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure; Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 35, Patrick further teaches that yarn (Fig. 1, #20) is surrounding the core (Fig. 1, #11) and can be made from polypropylene, nylon, rayon, acrylic, polyester and other materials (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure forms a stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure positioned within or defining the portion of the wall of the reservoir; Paragraph 0021). Furthermore, the structure disclosed by Patrick is capable of performing the same function of anti-microbially and bactericidally treating water without the core being present (i.e., stand-alone) as water would still flow through the yarn. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 36, Patrick teaches an antimicrobial filter cartridge to remove bacteria and other contaminants from water and which prevents the growth of bacterial and other microorganisms on the filter media (i.e., a device for reducing biofouling in a water system; Abstract);
the filter cartridge (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0016)
comprising a housing (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #23; Abstract);
with a core containing an outer wrapping comprising an anti-microbially and/or bactericidally treated yarn (i.e., at least one layer of a permeable fabric structure that forms a stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure positioned within or defining a portion of a wall of the reservoir, wherein the permeable fabric structure comprises an outer surface, an inner surface and a plurality of pores extending therebetween, the permeable fabric structure having a biocide on or in one or more of the outer surface or the inner surface and extending within at least a portion of at least one of a plurality of pores; Fig. 1, #18, 20; Paragraph 0021);
and where the filter cartridge (Fig. 3, #10) supplies a water filtration system (i.e., wherein the treatment unit provides conditioned water from the reservoir to the water system, wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #24; Paragraph 0021),
and the water flows (Fig. 1, #25; Arrows) from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected and directed through the central passage to an outside collection and/or delivery means (i.e., the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system, wherein the biocide contacts at least some of the water entering into or within the reservoir of the treatment unit so as to aid in forming the conditioned water prior to the conditioned water traveling into the water system such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit; Paragraph 0028).
Patrick does not teach wherein the stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least the outer surface and the inner surface of a portion of the stand-alone 3- dimensional flexible structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is free to flex the outer surface and the inner surface in both inward and outward directions when the water flows within the plurality of pores.
However, Katz teaches that a first stage of filters can be operated with fine netting supported by plastic pillars (Fig. 4, #58; Paragraphs 0051 and 0063) wherein the walls (Fig. 3, #56) can be flexible (i.e., wherein the stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least the outer surface and the inner surface of a portion of the stand-alone 3- dimensional flexible structure being each spaced apart from any other surface such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is free to flex the outer surface and the inner surface in both inward and outward directions when the water flows within the plurality of pores; Paragraph 0059) and the mesh should be coated to prevent marine life attachment and sediment attachment (Paragraph 0064) and that the benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system is designed to efficiently handle large volumes of water flowing through the water purification system (Paragraph 0050). The walls of the inlet device taught by Katz are clearly able to flex with the flow of water.
Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus, system, and method to purify water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because the inlet device would be able to efficiently handle large volumes of water.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 37, Katz further teaches that the walls of the inlet device are only attached at the edges by plastic pillars (Fig. 4, #58) and the netting does not contact any other surface on the open faces of the netting (i.e., wherein the inner and outer surfaces of the first portion of the body of the permeable fabric structure are spaced apart by a non-zero perpendicular distance from any other surfaces; Fig. 4; Paragraph 0063).
Claims 2 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al US Patent No. 6303078 B1 (hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding Claim 2, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the permeable fabric structure within the treatment unit has a permeability with a range of 0.1 milliliters of water per second per square centimeter to 100 milliliters of water per second per square centimeter.
However, Shimizu teaches several examples of a thermoplastic resin composition or a fibrous material which may be a fiber of the thermoplastic resin composition, a yarn coated with the thermoplastic resin composition, a rope coated with the thermoplastic resin composition or a woven fabric coated with the thermoplastic resin composition where the thermoplastic resin composition contains an antifouling compound (i.e., permeable fabric structure; Abstract) with examples 2-8 exhibiting water permeability of 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 16 cm3/cm2*sec, 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 24 cm3/cm2*sec, 48 cm3/cm2*sec, and 48 cm3/cm2*sec (Table 1) which all fall within the claimed range of 0.1 – 100 mL/cm2*sec. The reason this permeability is desired is that the actual properties of water are changed after the membrane if the permeability is less than 15 cm3/cm2*sec and excessively large permeabilities dilute the antifouling agent such that aquatic organisms can begin to attach (Col. 9, Lines 60-67).
Shimizu is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a fibrous material which contains an antifouling agent (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz with the yarn coated with the thermoplastic resin composition taught by Shimizu because the control of permeability to 27 cm3/cm2*sec would prevent the antifouling agent in the yarn from diluting too much and failing to function.
Regarding Claim 29, Katz further teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., formed within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., wherein the permeable fabric structure is configured to allow free flow of water from the body of water; Paragraphs 0050-0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Patrick in view of Katz does not teach without significant build-up occurring on either the outer surface or the inner surface of the permeable fabric structure for at least one month.
However, Shimizu teaches that the filter made of the thermoplastic resin composition, including yarn coated with the thermoplastic resin composition (Abstract), effectively prevents the attachment of aquatic organisms over several months where, before, the cleaning or replacement of the filter was required frequently due to attachment of aquatic organisms after several days use (i.e., without significant build-up occurring on either the outer surface or the inner surface of the permeable fabric structure for at least one month; Col. 10, Lines 66-67 to Col. 11, Lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the biocidal filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz with the thermoplastic resin yarn taught by Shimizu because the filter would not require cleaning or replacing for several months.
Claims 5 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coulter US Patent No. 20140291253 A1 (hereinafter Coulter).
Regarding Claim 5, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is higher than a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system.
However, Coulter teaches a degasifier (fig. 1, #160) that reduces any dissolved oxygen content by means of a contacting membrane and a vacuum source that facilitates the removal of the dissolved gases from the water (Paragraph 0066) for the purpose of providing ultrapure water (Paragraph 0037).
Coulter is analogous with the claimed invention because it pertains to a method and system of treating a liquid stream (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz with the degasifier taught by Coulter to provide ultrapure water to the downstream water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is higher than a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 34, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is similar to a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system.
However, Coulter teaches the systems and methods of reducing or maintaining a contaminant level of a liquid stream (i.e., dissolved oxygen; Paragraph 0003). The system contains an oxidizing agent concentration sensor, a source of reducing agent to introduce said reducing agent downstream of the oxidizing agent concentration sensor, and a controller to regulate addition of the reducing agent with respect to the oxidizing agent concentration sensor (Paragraph 0007) for the purpose of providing ultrapure water (Paragraph 0037). Through this configuration, the system can output water with a similar dissolved oxygen content to the water entering the reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz with the system containing the oxidizing agent concentration sensor, the source of reducing agent, and the controller taught by Coulter to provide ultrapure water to the downstream water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is similar to a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker US Patent No. 20010052364 A1 (hereinafter Walker).
Regarding Claim 6, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the water system comprises a once-through system.
However, Walker teaches that water distribution systems of various types are common, and that generally these are once-through systems for the purpose of only supplying water when a user demand occurs (Paragraph 0002).
Walker is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to water distribution systems (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to add the filter cartridge made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz to the once-through water system taught by Walker because the system would supply water to users only on demand.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 6 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 8, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the water system comprises a make-up water circuit of a recirculation system.
However, Walker teaches a water system with recirculation and without a storage tank (Fig. 2), that instead adds make-up water to replace water consumed at the user facility or facilities which is useful when the application is stationary and water is drawn from an external source such as a domestic water supply (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to add the filter cartridge made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz to the water system with make-up water taught by Walker because the system would connect to a domestic water supply and draw water from there.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 8 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hughes et al US Patent No. 5552057 A (hereinafter Hughes).
Regarding Claim 11, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the average dwell time is within a range of 1 minute to 6 hours.
However, Hughes teaches that some microorganisms, including certain virus strains and protozoan cysts may require contact times of up to 20 minutes and 30 minutes and that prior art utilizes holding tanks to achieve this contact time (Col. 1, Lines 46-55), which falls within the range of 1 minute to 6 hours.
Hughes is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a filter for disinfecting non-potable water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to add the holding tank taught by Hughes to the filter cartridge made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz because the holding tank would increase the contact time of the microorganisms with the biocide to kill certain viruses and protozoan cysts.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is within a range of 1 minute to 6 hours” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 12, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the average dwell time is 1 minute or less.
However, Hughes teaches a chamber containing a biocidal resin followed by a biocide removal chamber (Abstract). A contact chamber (Fig. 1, #16) has an appropriate volume and flow rate for a residence time of 7-8 seconds (Col. 8, Lines 24-49) for the purpose of purifying a high, continuous water flow rate without a large biocide resin volume and without a holding tank (Col. 8 Lines 66-67 to Col. 9, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to add the biocidal resin, contact chamber, and biocide removal chamber taught by Hughes to the filter cartridge made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz because the filter could purify high, continuous flow rates of water without a large biocide resin volume.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is 1 minute or less” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Spittle et al US Patent No. 20130175222 A1 (hereinafter Spittle).
Regarding Claim 13, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach wherein the average dwell time is greater than 6 hours.
However, Spittle teaches a water purification device (Fig. 6, #100) including only a biocidal chamber (Fig. 1a, #104) that has increased in size with a dwell time of 8 to 12 hours for the purpose of overnight purification and morning discharge (Paragraph 0098).
Spittle in analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water purification device (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter cartridge made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz with the size of biocidal chamber taught by Spittle because then the water would be purified overnight and collected or sent to a water system in the morning.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is greater than 6 hours” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Costas US Patent No. 20110120362 A1 (hereinafter Costas).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costas US Patent No. 20110120362 A1 (hereinafter Costas).
Regarding Claim 20, Katz further teaches that the inlet device contains a buoyancy device (Fig. 4, #200; Paragraph 0059) in the ocean (i.e., wherein the reservoir is formed within a body of water; Paragraph 0049) and that structural supports can serve as buoyancy devices as well (Paragraph 0063).
Patrick in view of Katz does not explicitly teach wherein the permeable fabric structure is attached to a floatable device such that the permeable fabric structure extends downwardly from the floatable device into the water.
However, Costas teaches the formation of a pocket underneath a boat (i.e., reservoir formed within a body of water; Fig. 7; Paragraph 0047) by a blanket made from any material, natural or man-made (i.e., permeable fabric structure; Fig. 6, #210; Paragraph 0048) that has a floating collar (i.e., floatable device; Fig. 6, #200) from which the blanket will hang down vertically beneath the water surface (i.e., wherein the permeable fabric structure is attached to a floatable device such that the permeable fabric structure extends downwardly from the floatable device into the water; Paragraph 0046). An advantage of the floating collar system is that the collar embraces the hull of a ship and may act as an anchor to hold the boat in a static position (Paragraph 0051).
Costas is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus and method for preventing fouling of the submerged part of a boat hull (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the biocidal filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz to be the blanket taught by Costas because the biofouling device would also act as an anchor during an anti-biofouling application for boat hulls.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steele et al US Patent No. 20190364886 A1 (hereinafter Steele).
Regarding Claim 30, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach further comprising one or more strips or panels positioned in the reservoir, wherein each of the one or more strips or panels is flexible and includes a second biocide thereon or therein that contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water.
However, Steele teaches a wall (i.e., one or more strips or panels; Fig. 2, #36; Paragraph 0029) that includes a substrate such as a stainless steel panel (i.e., one or more strips or panels is flexible; Fig. 3, #38; Paragraph 0030) and a sustained-release material that includes a silver-based biocide (i.e., includes a second biocide thereon or therein; Fig. 3, #40, 42; Paragraph 0031) which passively adds the silver biocide to liquid water (i.e., contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water; Paragraph 0027). Steele further teaches that when the walls (Fig. 2, #36) are the stainless steel plates, they may be separate and removable from the housing (Paragraph 0030).
Steele is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a biocide system for water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz to contain the stainless steel panels taught by Steele because the stainless steel panels would be separate and removable from the housing.
Furthermore, the limitation “that contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 31, Steele further teaches a housing (i.e., inner reservoir; Fig. 2, #30) that defines an inner cavity (Fig. 2, #34) in which there are one or more walls (i.e., wherein the inner reservoir includes the one or more strips or panels positioned therein; Fig. 2, #36; Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 32, Patrick in view of Katz does not teach further comprising an inner reservoir positioned within the reservoir, wherein the inner reservoir includes one or more strips or panels positioned therein, wherein each of the one or more strips or panels is flexible and includes biocide thereon or therein that contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water.
However, Steele teaches a wall (i.e., one or more strips or panels; Fig. 2, #36; Paragraph 0029) that includes a substrate such as a stainless steel plate or panel (i.e., one or more strips or panels is flexible; Fig. 3, #38; Paragraph 0030) and a sustained-release material that includes a silver-based biocide (i.e., includes biocide thereon or therein; Fig. 3, #40, 42; Paragraph 0031) which passively adds the silver biocide to liquid water (i.e., contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water; Paragraph 0027). Steele teaches a housing (i.e., inner reservoir; Fig. 2, #30) that defines an inner cavity (Fig. 2, #34) in which there are one or more walls (i.e., wherein the inner reservoir includes the one or more strips or panels positioned therein; Fig. 2, #36; Paragraph 0029). Steele also teaches that the number of walls (Fig. 2, #36) and the surface area provided by the sustained-release material (Fig. 3, #40) can be varied to provide sustained release of a desired amount of the silver-based biocide (Fig. 3, #42) into the passing liquid water (Paragraph 0035) which is effective to inhibit microbial proliferation and is not harmful to humans, even when consumed in potable water (Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the cartridge filter made obvious by Patrick in view of Katz to contain the stainless steel panels taught by Steele because the stainless steel panels would be separate and removable from the housing.
Furthermore, the limitation “that contacts the water in the reservoir to aid in forming the conditioned water” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 33, Steele further teaches that when the walls (i.e., one or more strips or panels; Fig. 2, #36) are the stainless steel plates, they may be separate and removable from the housing (i.e., replaceable; Paragraph 0030).
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights