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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been entered. Claims 10-18 are pending in the application, the 112(b) rejections previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations, see modified rejections below. With respect to applicant’s argument that Tagliavini’s seal 161 is completely separate from screens 20, applicant’s remarks are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, it is not clear from the claim language that the seal and diaphragm are required to be separate or integral, further see MPEP 2144.04 V., making integral is that the use of a one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/25/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application over application 17/792,853 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a filter medium, a translation arrangement, a feed arrangement, a recovery arrangement, and a discharge arrangement in claim 17, and diaphragm inflation means in claim 18, as noted by applicant in the remarks dated 02/25/2025 these items, and equivalents thereof, are known in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oelbermann (US 4,666,596) in view of Tagliavini (WO 2016/097839) or Tagliavini in view of Oelbermann, alternatively in view of Bonn (US 4,749,482).
Examiner notes claim 1 recites a horizontally extending filter chamber, and limitations describing vertical or vertically positioned, vertical is understood to be a direction perpendicular to the plane of the filter plate assembly and filter chamber.
With respect to claim 10,
Taglaivini teaches filter plate assemblies for filter presses (abstract), with embodiments separate modular plate groups the plate group comprising frames 30 (rigid filter plate frame defining a closed periphery), wall 10 (a filter plate attached onto the filter plate frame on the plate side of the filter plate frame assembly, and covering at least an area delimited by the filter plate frame), screen 20 and membrane 50 (each a diaphragm)(Figs. 3, 7 , 19, p. 9-14), in an embodiment support wall 110 (a plate) and perimeter 130 (frame), seal 161 in perimeter seating 162 (a continuous seal bead for sealing the diaphragm against the filter plate), a portion of the seal positioned with play to allow thermal dilation and displacement of the screen (displacement of the screen, free play is created between of the subframe between the filter plate and the filter plate), and lintels 165 press and guarantee the seal, lintels 165 (a subframe) fixed by fixing means 170 (a subframe vertically secured between the filter plate frame, nested within and laterally delimited by the closed periphery of the filter plate frame, p. 14 line 16 - p. 16 line 2, see in particular Figs. 18, 19, 22), Tragliavini teaches seal 161 with first portion 161a and second portion 161b, seal 161a positioned with play internally to allow dilation and displacement (p. 15L14-20, the continuous seal bead are movable with the subframe) and lintels attached to the frames with bolts or screws to guarantee correct distribution of the pressure and tensions, fixing means such as screws/bolts along the perimeter of lintels allowing for differential dilations and can therefore be used at high temperatures (P. 14/L1-10, P. 15/L14-30).
If Tagliavini’s taught displacement and dilation of the screen are not found to satisfy the limitation of the play between the plate and subframe, Oelbermann teaches a membrane plate for a filter press where a membrane is loosely enclosed between a bracket plate frame 1/25 (Figs. 1-5, C4/L1-61, a rigid filter plate defining a closed periphery), frame 2 (a filter plate attached onto the filter plate frame on the plate side of the filter plate frame assembly, and covering at least an area delimited by the filter plate frame (Figs. 1-5); membrane 3 wherein when the filter plates are pressed together in edge areas thereof the bracket plate, the membrane, and the frame are also tightly clamped together within each membrane filter plate, and the filter press closing pressure furnishes a sealing pressure for the membrane (C2/L25-35, Figs. 1-5, a diaphragm attached to the frame, attached given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include joined, fastened or connected to), the membrane provided with an edge enlargement 15 so that the membrane 3 remains suspended at the edge enlargement 15 when the frame 2 is pulled away from the bracket plate 1 (Fig. 3, C4/L26-61, having a continuous seal bead for sealing the diaphragm against the filter plate, such that a space delimited by the seal bead is defined between the diaphragm and the filter plate), the frame is mounted on several bearing means anchored in the bracket plate so as to enable a free movement of the frame after the chamber filter press is opened and when the press is opened the frame and the bracket plate are pulled apart to the extent of their play movement (C2/L10-64, the frame sized and configured such that a vertical free play is created between the frame and the filter plate allows a limited vertical travel with respect to the filter plate frame and the filter plate), allowing the membrane to adjust back into position (the diaphragm is movable with the frame, resides between the frame and the filter plate and covers an area delimited by the frame), the frame is mounted on slide bearing means anchored in the bracket plate so as to enable a free movement of the frame (C2/L10-20), slide bearing means may be for example bolts or screws, in an embodiment the frame rests on the bolt to allow slidable displacement (C3/L10-62, C4/L62-69), Fig. 3, providing play of movement (C5/L6-35). Oelberman does not teach a separate subframe and frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oelbermann’s plate to provide a subframe as taught by Taglaivini, in order to distribute pressures, and as the use of modular plate assemblies is known in the art as shown by Taglaivini, and according to Taglaivini this type of mounting enables differential dilations therefor can be advantageously used in high temperature applications (p. 13 line 15 –p. 14 line 6), and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taglaivini’s taught apparatus such that the screws/bolts allow for free movement or play to enable free movement and allow the membrane to adjust, increasing useful life of the plate (C2/L38-62).
While the taught combination does not explicitly teach the plate assembly for a horizontal filter press. Oelbermann and Tagliavini each teach use in filter press, but are silent as to the orientation of the filter press, absent clarification of structural differences, the orientation the plate and type of press are directed to an intended use, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), further, examiner notes a horizonal filter press is generally considered to be a press that comprises filter plates oriented in horizontal stack with pressure applied horizontally, and such that the chamber would be oriented vertically, whereas a horizontally extending filter chamber would seem to imply a vertical stack of filter plates with pressure applied vertically. In either case, as noted above vertical is interpreted to be in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the plate assembly.
Alternatively, Bonn teaches a filter press comprising plate and frame members (abstract, filter plate frame assembly), where the plates may be vertically or horizontally oriented (C5/L9-24, horizontal), plate frame 3, filter plate 2, membrane 4 and continuous bead 6 (a diaphragm, continuous seal bead for sealing the diaphragm against the filter plate, such that a space delimited by the seal bead is defined between the diaphragm and the plate, C5), retaining frame 12 (a sub-frame with a central opening having a closed area defining a lateral boundary of an associated filter chamber), retaining frame 12 (the subframe is nested within and laterally delimited by the closed periphery of the filter plate frame, Fig. 1-3), movement between first and second positions and play of movement of the retaining frame such that a vertical free play of the subframe between the plate and the (abstract, C4/L1-60), membrane 4 is secured by retaining frame 12 (C5/L47-55, Fig. 1-3), Fig. 2 illustrates membrane 4 between retaining frames 12 and frame 3 (resides between the subframe and the filter plate and covers an area delimited by the sub-frame, Fig. 2, C5/L25-C6/L24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the taught combination could be used a vertical or horizontal orientation, as orientation in either direction is known in the art as shown by Bonn and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 11, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 10 is taught above. Oelbermann teaches play is provided between a shoulder and a bearing (C5/L2-6, C4/L26-60, Figs.), the subframe has an uppermost position within the limited vertical travel corresponding to a situation in which the subframe is pressed towards the plate, and a lowermost position within the limited vertical travel corresponding to a situation in which the subframe is not pressed towards the plate.
With respect to claim 12, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 11 is taught above. Oelbermann teaches play is provided between a shoulder and a bearing (C5/L2-6, C4/L26-60, Figs.), the frame comprises a first bearing surface and the subframe comprises a second bearing surface, in the lowermost position, the subframe is vertically supported by the first bearing surface at the second bearing surface, and wherein, in the uppermost position, the subframe is not vertically supported by the by the first bearing surface.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 10 is taught above. Oelbermann teaches in a pulled apart condition shown in FIG. 2, the membrane 3 is suspended at its upper thickened edge enlargement 15 and is completely exposed in the clamping area so that the membrane may readily readjust (Fig. 2, C4/L45-60) when the sub-frame is the uppermost position, the seal bead is engaged with the plate, and when the subframe is in the lowermost position, the seal bead is disengaged from the plate, and when the subframe is in the lowermost position, the seal bead is engaged with the plate so as to provide sealing against a first pressure differential, and to leak under a second, higher pressure differential, when the subframe is in the uppermost position, the seal bead engages with the plate so as to provide sealing also against the second pressure differential.
With respect to claim 16, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 10 is taught above. Oelbermann teaches play of 1-3 mm (abstract, C3/L15-17, C4/L26-61, limited travel of the of subframe is at least 0.5 mm.
With respect to claim 17, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 10 is taught above. Bonn teaches a vertical or horizontal press (C5/L9-24, horizontal filter press), a plurality of membrane plates (C5/L9-24, a plurality of filter plate frame assemblies), opening and closing of the filter chamber (C1/L5-32, C6/L20-45, filter plate frame assemblies are configured movable towards each other into a closed position in which a filter chamber is formed between adjacent filter plate frame assemblies, and away from each to an open position in which adjacent filter plate frame assemblies are spaced apart from each other); filter cloth 9 (C5/L25-48, Fig. 1, a filter medium arranged between adjacent filter plate frame assemblies); While Bonn does not teach explicitly teach a translation arrangement for moving the filter plate frame assemblies towards each other so as to form a filter chamber between adjacent filter plate frame assemblies, and away from each other so as to open the filter chamber; a feed arrangement for feeding slurry into the filter chamber; a recovering arrangement for recovering filtrate from the filter chamber, and a discharge arrangement for discharging a filter cake formed within the filter chamber, as noted by applicant in the remarks dated 02/25/2025 these components are presumed and conventional features of a typical horizontal filter press and very well known to those in the field of the disclosure, and as such obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include.
With respect to claim 18, the filter plate frame assembly according to Claim 17 is taught above. Bonn teaches the apparatus is operated with a pressure medium that presses the membrane forward, implying and inflation means, and as noted by applicant in the remarks dated 02/25/2025 these components are presumed and conventional features of a typical horizontal filter press and very well known to those in the field of the disclosure, and as such obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claim may be indicated as allowed until the 112(b) rejection is overcome. Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The taught combination teaches the use of pins or screws as bearing points to provide play of the membrane/screen, Oelbermann teaches bearing on bolts or screws (Oelbermann Figs., Taglaivini Fig. 22), however, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to provide the first bearing surface comprises a groove and a ridge and the second bearing surface comprises a groove and ridge, wherein the groove of the first bearing surface is configured to form fittingly receive the ridge of the second bearing surface and the groove of the second bearing surface is configured to from-fittingly receive the ridge of the first bearing surface, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keller WO 2010127776 – integral seal/diaphagm
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 JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777