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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 states “said liquid preferably being an oil”.
Claim 2 states “ preferably at least 20 bar, or preferably at least 22 bar, or preferably at least 24 bar, most preferably at least 25 bar”.
Claim 7 states “ preferably to below 1400C, more preferably to below 1100C”.
Claim 11 states “The conventional heater is optionally a silicone heater”.
Claim 13 states “optionally, is protected from light”.
Claim 14 states “optionally, is protected from light”.
Claim 20 states “ preferably to below 1400C, more preferably to below 1100C”.
It is unclear if the recitation following the word preferably is a positive limitation or merely an exemplary preference (MPEP 2173.05(d) and (i)). . Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1, and thus inherit the indefiniteness issue thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the stream of fluid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first pump" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first pump" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second pump" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the membrane filter" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the vessel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the permeate”, “the membrane filter”, “the vessel” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16-19 recites the limitation "the second pump" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16-19 recites the limitation " the membrane filter " in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “The method of filtering oil...according to claim 7”, but claim 7 is an apparatus claim. When both an apparatus and a method are claimed in the same claim it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams (US Patent No. 4622135).
Regarding Claim 1, Williams teaches a frying apparatus (Figure 2, Deep Fryer Unit F), said frying apparatus comprising a housing defined by outer walls and a container adapted to contain a liquid (Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 45-60, Deep Fryer Unit F has a housing with vertical and bottom walls containing oil), said liquid preferably being an oil, said frying apparatus being connected to a filtration system (Figure 2 and Col 2 Line 49-54, Deep Fryer Unit F is connected to filtering system M), said filtration system being configured to continuously receive and return a flow of said liquid to said container in a closed loop configuration (Figure 2 and Col 2 Line 49-54, Deep Fryer Unit F is connected to filtering system M and the oil is continually recycled between the two units in a closed loop), said container comprising at least one depth filter and/or pre- filter (Figure 2 and col 7 Line 33-39, Strainer 60 filters out large particles in the oil), said filtration system comprising first and second filter circuits (Figure 2, Filtration system has first circuit labeled L-1 through pump P to L4 to filtering unit U. Figure 2, Second Circuit is from filtering unit U through L2 through the Pump P and Through L3 to Deep Fryer Unit F).
Regarding Claim 2, Williams teaches that the first filter circuit comprises fluid-carrying tubing and at least one pump for pumping the fluid and is configured to flow the stream of fluid through the depth filter and/or prefilter (Figure 2, Pump P flows oil from the Fryer unit through Strainer 60 and through Line L-1 as seen by the arrows.).
Regarding Claim 13, Williams teaches that the filter system is arranged inside the housing and, optionally, is protected from light (Figure 1, The filtration system is inside the housing).
Regarding Claim 14, Williams teaches that the filter system is arranged outside the housing and, optionally, is protected from light (Figure 2, The filtration system is not inside the housing).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of King (US Patent No. 6254790).
Regarding Claim 3, Williams teaches that the fluid- carrying hoses of the second filter circuit are connected to the first filter circuit such that a partial flow of the flow of the first filter circuit is directed as a flow into the second filter circuit (Figure 2 and 8, Lines L4 from the first filter circuit is connected to line L3 from the second filter circuit using a single flow dividing valve 81 which divides the flow between L3 and L4).
Williams fails to teach a second filter circuit with two pumps.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second filter circuit comprises fluid-carrying hoses (Figure 1, A central oil filtration system with oil carrying lines), at least two pumps (Figure 1, The central oil filtration system has Pump 104,110, 130), and a filter element (Figure 1, The central oil filtration system has Separator 112, reads as a filter, and Filter 120).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate two pumps and a filter element in the Second Filter circuit as stated in King. The pumps and the separator help continuously filter the oil until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Filtration Cycle)
Regarding Claim 4, Williams in view of King teaches that the partial flow is delivered to the second filter circuit by the first pump of the second filter circuit (Williams: Figure 2 and 8, Lines L4 from first filter circuit is connected to line L3 from second filter circuit using a single flow dividing valves 81 which divides the flow between L3 and L4).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of King (US Patent No. 6254790) and further in view of Lowrey (US Patent No. 3616909).
Regrading Claim 5, William in view of King fails to teach a first pump that increases pressure.
Lowrey teaches a continuous process for reclaiming frying fat (Abstract, reclamation Process) where during operation downstream of the first pump of the second filter circuit (Figure3, Pump 36 receives contaminated oil from 30) there is an increased pressure compared to upstream of the first pump of the second filter circuit (Col 6 Line 34-41, Contaminated frying fat drains into drain line 31 and passes through pump 36 where it is ensures that the pressure is in the broad range of 10 psi to 100 psi, This reads as increasing the pressure if it fall below that range).
Lowrey teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying that the pump increases the pressure by at least 18 bar, preferably at least 20 bar, or preferably at least 22 bar, or preferably at least 24 bar, most preferably at least 25 bar. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to the criticality that the pump increases the pressure by at least 18 bar, preferably at least 20 bar, or preferably at least 22 bar, or preferably at least 24 bar, most preferably at least 25 bar. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regrading Claim 6, William in view of Lowrey fails to teach a first and second pump.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the flow of the fluid downstream of the first pump of the second filter circuit is pumped through the filter element by means of the second pump of the second filter circuit (Figure 1, Pump 110 acts as a second pump and brings in oil from the Tank 106, which is downstream of Pump 104 that acts as a first pump, through Separator 112).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey to incorporate two pumps in the Second Filter circuit as stated in King. The pumps help continuously filter the oil until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Filtration Cycle).
Claims 7, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of King (US Patent No. 6254790) and further in view of Lowrey (US Patent No. 3616909) and Suh (KR Patent No. 20090052777).
Regrading Claim 7, William in view of Lowrey and King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter element of the second filter circuit is a membrane filter (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32 located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey and King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Regrading Claim 15, William in view of Lowrey and King teaches that wherein the liquid is continuously pumped or sucked through the filter (Williams: Figure 2 and Col 2 Line 49-54, Deep Fryer Unit F is connected to filtering system M and the oil is continually recycled between the two units in a closed loop and through the filters).
William in view of Lowrey and King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey and King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Regarding Claim 17, Williams in view of Lowrey fails to teach a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second pump of the second filter circuit pumps the liquid conduit through the filter such that the flow of the liquid creates an overflow and an underflow in the filter (Col 4 Line 28-36, Pump 110 is activated, and the cooking substance is circulated through valve 108, pump 110, separator 112, valve 114, and back to first tank 106. Separator 112 separates the impurities from the cooking substance, which reads as creating an underflow and an overflow), the overflow and the underflow being separated by a filter, the underflow being a closed loop (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil that permeate, reads as the underflow, passes the Separator 112 where the impurities, reads as the overflow, is separated from the oil), thereby creating a permeate and a retentate (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil circulates back to the Tank 106 multiple times in a closed looped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey to incorporate a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop as stated in King. The filtration can be conducted until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Closed Loop).
Williams in view of Lowrey and King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32, which inherently has a membrane cloth, is located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey and King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Regarding Claim 18, Williams in view of Lowrey fails to teach a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second pump of the second filter circuit pumps the liquid conduit through the filter such that the flow of the liquid creates an overflow and an underflow in the filter (Col 4 Line 28-36, Pump 110 is activated, and the cooking substance is circulated through valve 108, pump 110, separator 112, valve 114, and back to first tank 106. Separator 112 separates the impurities from the cooking substance, which reads as creating an underflow and an overflow), the overflow and the underflow being separated by a filter, the underflow being a closed loop (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil that permeate, reads as the underflow, passes the Separator 112 where the impurities, reads as the overflow, is separated from the oil), thereby creating a permeate and a retentate (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil circulates back to the Tank 106 multiple times in a closed looped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey to incorporate a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop as stated in King. The filtration can be conducted until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Closed Loop).
Williams in view of Lowrey and King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32, which inherently has a membrane cloth, is located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey and King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Regarding Claim 19, Williams in view of Lowrey fails to teach a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second pump of the second filter circuit pumps the liquid conduit through the filter such that the flow of the liquid creates an overflow and an underflow in the filter (Col 4 Line 28-36, Pump 110 is activated, and the cooking substance is circulated through valve 108, pump 110, separator 112, valve 114, and back to first tank 106. Separator 112 separates the impurities from the cooking substance, which reads as creating an underflow and an overflow), the overflow and the underflow being separated by a filter, the underflow being a closed loop (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil that permeate, reads as the underflow, passes the Separator 112 where the impurities, reads as the overflow, is separated from the oil), thereby creating a permeate and a retentate (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil circulates back to the Tank 106 multiple times in a closed looped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey to incorporate a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop as stated in King. The filtration can be conducted until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Closed Loop).
Williams in view of Lowrey and King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32, which inherently has a membrane cloth, is located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Lowrey and King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of King (US Patent No. 6254790) and further in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20090052777).
Regarding Claim 8, Williams fails to teach a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second pump of the second filter circuit pumps the liquid conduit through the filter such that the flow of the liquid creates an overflow and an underflow in the filter (Col 4 Line 28-36, Pump 110 is activated, and the cooking substance is circulated through valve 108, pump 110, separator 112, valve 114, and back to first tank 106. Separator 112 separates the impurities from the cooking substance, which reads as creating an underflow and an overflow), the overflow and the underflow being separated by a filter, the underflow being a closed loop (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil that permeate, reads as the underflow, passes the Separator 112 where the impurities, reads as the overflow, is separated from the oil), thereby creating a permeate and a retentate (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil circulates back to the Tank 106 multiple times in a closed looped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop as stated in King. The filtration can be conducted until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Closed Loop).
Williams in view of King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32, which inherently has a membrane cloth, is located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Regarding Claim 9, Williams in view of Suh fails to teach a third pump that movers the oil back to the fryer.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the permeate, through a third pump of the second filter circuit, is returned to the vessel (Figure 1 and Col 5 Line 31-36, Pump 130 brings in oil from the Tank 126 that passed through filter 120 to the fryer through Line 132).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Suh to incorporate a third pump as stated in King. The pump helps the oil circulate back to the Tank multiple times in a closed looped until the oil reaches a certain desired condition (Col 4 Line 19-48, Pump).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20090052777).
Regarding Claim 10, Williams teaches a second filter circuit with a first pump (Figure 2, Filtration system has Second filter Circuit from filtering unit U through L2 through the Pump P and Through L3 to Deep Fryer Unit F).
Williams fails to teach a heat exchanger downstream of the first pump and upstream of the second pump.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the heat exchanger being configured to cool the flow of liquid upstream of the second pump of the second filter circuit to at least below 170°C, preferably to below 140°C, more preferably to below 110°C (Paragraph 3 and Figure 1, The heat exchanger 21 cools the edible oil to 30 to 100°C and then introduced into the cooling separator 31 through the pump 24 which is upstream of the heat exchanger).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate a heat exchanger to cool the oil as stated in Suh. The heat exchanger cools the edible oil to below the freezing point of animal fat, so that the animal fat contained in the edible oil is solidified to form a cooled solid, and the vegetable oil is solidified to form a cooled non-solid for better filtering (Paragraph 3, Heat Exchanger).
Regarding Claim 20, Williams teaches a second filter circuit with a first pump (Figure 2, Filtration system has Second filter Circuit from filtering unit U through L2 through the Pump P and Through L3 to Deep Fryer Unit F).
Williams fails to teach a heat exchanger downstream of the first pump and upstream of the second pump.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the heat exchanger being configured to cool the flow of liquid upstream of the second pump of the second filter circuit to at least below 170°C, preferably to below 140°C, more preferably to below 110°C (Paragraph 3 and Figure 1, The heat exchanger 21 cools the edible oil to 30 to 100°C and then introduced into the cooling separator 31 through the pump 24 which is upstream of the heat exchanger).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate a heat exchanger to cool the oil as stated in Suh. The heat exchanger cools the edible oil to below the freezing point of animal fat, so that the animal fat contained in the edible oil is solidified to form a cooled solid, and the vegetable oil is solidified to form a cooled non-solid for better filtering (Paragraph 3, Heat Exchanger).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20090052777) and further in view of Lowrey (US Patent No. 3616909).
Regrading Claim 11, Williams in view of Suh fails to teach that a heat exchanger heats the oil before reentering the fryer.
Lowrey teaches a continuous process for reclaiming frying fat (Abstract, reclamation Process) where the heat exchanger comprises a conventional heater, wherein the conventional heater is optionally a silicone heater (Figure 3, The Heat Exchanger 48 heats up the oil before it enters the Frying Fat Zone 29 therefore it reads as having a heater).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Suh to incorporate a heat exchanger to heat the oil as stated in Lowrey. The heat exchanger insures that reclaimed frying fat circulated back into frying fat zone is at the desired frying temperature (Col 7 Line 25-30 3, Heat Exchanger).
Regrading Claim 12, Williams in view of Suh fails to teach that a heat exchanger heats the oil before reentering the fryer.
Lowrey teaches a continuous process for reclaiming frying fat (Abstract, reclamation Process) where the heat exchanger is configured to heat the permeate after the membrane filter and before entering the vessel (Figure 3, Heat Exchanger 48 is between Separating Zone 34, acting as a filter, and Frying Fat Zone 30, The Heat Exchanger 48 heats up the oil before it enters the Frying Fat Zone 30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Suh to incorporate a heat exchanger to heat the oil as stated in Lowrey. The heat exchanger insures that reclaimed frying fat circulated back into frying fat zone is at the desired frying temperature (Col 7 Line 25-30 3, Heat Exchanger).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Patent No. 4622135) in view of King (US Patent No. 6254790) and further in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20090052777).
Regarding Claim 16, Williams fails to teach a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop.
King teaches a cooking substance filtering apparatus (Abstract, Filtering Apparatus) where the second pump of the second filter circuit pumps the liquid conduit through the filter such that the flow of the liquid creates an overflow and an underflow in the filter (Col 4 Line 28-36, Pump 110 is activated, and the cooking substance is circulated through valve 108, pump 110, separator 112, valve 114, and back to first tank 106. Separator 112 separates the impurities from the cooking substance, which reads as creating an underflow and an overflow), the overflow and the underflow being separated by a filter, the underflow being a closed loop (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil that permeate, reads as the underflow, passes the Separator 112 where the impurities, reads as the overflow, is separated from the oil), thereby creating a permeate and a retentate (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 28-46, The oil circulates back to the Tank 106 multiple times in a closed looped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate a filter that creates a underflow and an overflow in a closed loop as stated in King. The filtration can be conducted until certain conditions are met such as filtration duration, number of times the oil was circulated, or oil weight (Col 4 Line 19-30, Closed Loop).
Williams in view of King fails to teach that the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth.
Suh teaches an oil filtration system (Abstract, Filtration system) where the filter is a membrane filter with a membrane cloth (Figure 1, Filtration Membrane 32, which inherently has a membrane cloth, is located on a pipe line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of King to incorporate a membrane filter as stated in Suh. The membrane filter separates the solids and allows only the non-solids to pass through (Paragraph 3, Membrane Filter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761