DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenstrup (WO 89/09646) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (WO 2019/058865) [hereinafter Kawaguchi] [citations are based on English Machine Translation].
With respect to claim 1, Steenstrup discloses a filter (filter unit), as shown in Fig. 2, having: an apparatus F (elongated main body) defining a longitudinal axis, as shown in Fig. 2; an inlet 4 (slurry inlet) and an outlet 5 (slurry outlet) in fluid communication with a slurry chamber extending between opposing ends of the body F, as shown in the figure below; a secondary outlet 6 (filtrate outlet) in fluid communication with the slurry chamber, as shown in Fig. 2; a filter element 7 (individual filter screen unit) fluidly interposed between the slurry chamber and the filtrate outlet 6, as shown in Fig. 2; the screen unit 7 comprising a screen removably received in a corresponding receptacle, as shown in the figure below, in the body F, as shown in Fig. 2, the screen protruding into the slurry chamber, as shown in the figure below, the screen unit 7 configured to remove particles greater than a predetermined size from a liquid to produce a filtrate (see page 3, lines 1-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Steenstrup lacks a plurality of filtrate outlets; a plurality of individual filter screen units; and the screen units configured to remove particles from a slurry.
With respect to the plurality of filtrate outlets and the plurality of individual filter screen units: Kawaguchi discloses a filtration device 1A, as shown in Fig. 12, having a flow path member 10a having multiple recessed parts 15a and including second flow path members 20 (plurality of filtrate outlets) to which filtration filters 30 (plurality of individual filter screen units) are attached with respect to each concave portion 15a, as shown in Fig. 12. Fluid can be filtered by the plurality if filtration filters 30 and the filtration efficiency of the fluid can be further improved (see page 13, lines 1-7 of English Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the filter disclosed by Steenstrup with a plurality of filtrate outlets and a plurality of individual filter screen units, as taught by Kawaguchi, in order to improve the filtration efficiency of the filter (see page 13, lines 1-17 of English Machine Translation). Furthermore, to provide a second filtrate outlet and screen unit, is considered to be a duplication of parts, and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With respect to the specific use of the screen units, i.e., the screen units configured to remove particles from a slurry: This limitation has been considered to be a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Steenstrup teaches a liquid filtering apparatus that may be used for filtration of fuel oil for motors (see page 3, lines 12-20), and Steenstrup teaches the claimed structure, and therefore, it is inherent and/or obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use.
With respect to claim 2, Kawaguchi discloses wherein the plurality of individual filter screen units 30 are assemblies each comprising a screen 30 having predetermined mesh size openings, as shown in Fig. 12, and a holding portion 32 (annular seal) which seals each of the plurality of filter screen units to the main body of the filter unit, as shown in Figs.6-7, and it would have been obvious to modify Steenstrup for this reason.
With respect to claim 3, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein each of the plurality of individual filter screen units 7 is removably retained in the main body F of the filter unit by a corresponding guiding 9 (retainer) detachably coupled to the main body F and received at least partially in each receptacle, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 4, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein each of the retainers 9 defines one of the filtrate outlets 6, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 5, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein each of the plurality of individual filter screen units 7 and each of the plurality of filtrate outlets 6 are arranged to extract a portion of the slurry when flowing through the slurry chamber in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 6, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the filler unit is oriented horizontally when in use such that the slurry flows through the slurry chamber in a horizontal direction and the filtrate is extracted from the slurry chamber in a vertical direction, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 7, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the slurry inlet 4 and slurry outlet 5 are arranged at the opposing ends of the main body of the filter unit, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 8, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the retainers 9 are each coupled to the main body of the filter unit, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup. Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi lacks the specific type pf coupling, i.e., by threaded fasteners. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to connect the retainers to the main body and since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired type of coupling according to a desired application and threaded fasteners are a common typer of coupling used in the art.
With respect to claim 9, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi lacks wherein the screen of each of the plurality of individual filter screen units is convexly curved and dome shaped. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 10, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi lacks wherein each of the plurality of individual filter screen units is configured to be removed and replaced without breaking end fluid connections of the slurry inlet and the slurry outlet to system tubing or piping. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to replace the filter screen unit for maintenance purposes.
With respect to claim 11, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the screen units 30 are arranged in a single linear row in the main body 10 of the filter unit 1A and spaced axially apart from each other along the longitudinal axis, as shown in Fig. 12 of Kawaguchi.
With respect to claim 12, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the receptacles 15a in the main body 10 of the filter unit 1A are complementary configured to the screen units 30 and upwardly open, as shown in Fig. 12, each receptacle 15a fluidly communicating with the main slurry chamber 13 of the filter unit 1A, as shown in Fig. 12 of Kawaguchi.
With respect to claim 13, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the retainers 9 are configured to trap the plurality of individual filter screen units 7 in the receptacles of the main body of the filter unit, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 14, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the main body of the filter unit is block-shaped, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 15, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the retainers 9 have a stepped-shape cylindrical configuration, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 16, Steenstrup discloses a filter (filter unit), as shown in Fig. 2, having: an elongated main body F defining a longitudinal axis, as shown in Fig. 2; a slurry inlet 4 and a slurry outlet 5 in fluid communication with a slurry chamber extending between opposing ends of the body, as shown in the figure above; a filtrate outlet 6 in fluid communication with the slurry chamber, as shown in Fig. 2; a filter screen unit 7 fluidly interposed between the slurry chamber and the filtrate outlet 6, as shown in Fig. 2, the filter screen unit comprising a screen, as shown in Fig. 2; and a retainer 9 configured to be insertable into a filter screen unit, as shown in Fig. 2; wherein filter screen unit 7 is configured to be removably received in a corresponding receptacle, as shown in the figure above, in the elongated main body and trapped within the corresponding receptacle by a corresponding one of the plurality of retainers 9, as shown in the figure above.
Steenstrup lacks a plurality of filtrate outlets; a plurality of cup-shaped filter screen units; and a plurality of retainers.
With respect to the plurality of filtrate outlets and the plurality of individual filter screen units: Kawaguchi discloses a filtration device 1A, as shown in Fig. 12, having a flow path member 10a having multiple recessed parts 15a and including second flow path members 20 (plurality of filtrate outlets) to which filtration filters 30 (plurality of cup-shaped filter screen units) are attached with respect to each concave portion 15a, as shown in Fig. 12. Each screen unit 30 is removably retained in the main body 10 of the filter unit 1A by a corresponding holder 40 (retainer), as shown in Figs. 3 and 12. Fluid can be filtered by the plurality if filtration filters 30 and the filtration efficiency of the fluid can be further improved (see page 13, lines 1-7 of English Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the filter disclosed by Steenstrup with a plurality of filtrate outlets, a plurality of individual filter screen units, and a plurality of retainers, as taught by Kawaguchi, in order to improve the filtration efficiency of the filter (see page 13, lines 1-17 of English Machine Translation). Furthermore, to provide a second filtrate outlet, screen unit, and retainer, is considered to be a duplication of parts, and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With respect to claim 17, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the screen of each of the plurality of cup-shaped filter screen units protrudes into the slurry chamber, as shown in the figure above.
With respect to claim 18, Steenstrup discloses a filter (filter unit), as shown in Fig. 2, having: a main body F defining a longitudinal axis, as shown in Fig. 2; a slurry inlet 4 and a slurry outlet 5 in fluid communication with a slurry chamber extending between opposing ends of the main body F, as shown in the figure above; a filtrate outlet 6 in fluid communication with the slurry chamber, as shown in Fig. 2; and a filter screen unit 7 fluidly interposed between the slurry chamber and filtrate outlet 6, as shown in Fig. 2, the filter screen unit 7 comprising a screen which protrudes into the slurry chamber, as shown in Fig. 2, the filter screen unit 7 removably received in a corresponding receptacle in the main body F, as shown in the figure above.
Steenstrup lacks a plurality of filtrate outlets; a plurality of filter screen units; and a convexly curved dome-shaped screen.
With respect to the plurality of filtrate outlets and the plurality of filter screen units: Kawaguchi discloses a filtration device 1A, as shown in Fig. 12, having a flow path member 10a having multiple recessed parts 15a and including second flow path members 20 (plurality of filtrate outlets) to which filtration filters 30 (plurality of cup-shaped filter screen units) are attached with respect to each concave portion 15a, as shown in Fig. 12. Each screen unit 30 is removably retained in the main body 10 of the filter unit 1A by a corresponding holder 40 (retainer), as shown in Figs. 3 and 12. Fluid can be filtered by the plurality if filtration filters 30 and the filtration efficiency of the fluid can be further improved (see page 13, lines 1-7 of English Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the filter disclosed by Steenstrup with a plurality of filtrate outlets, and a plurality of filter screen units, as taught by Kawaguchi, in order to improve the filtration efficiency of the filter (see page 13, lines 1-17 of English Machine Translation). Furthermore, to provide a second filtrate outlet and screen unit, is considered to be a duplication of parts, and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With respect to the convexly curved dome-shaped screen: This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 19, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses wherein the plurality of filter screen units 7 are oriented above the slurry chamber, as shown in Fig. 2 of Steenstrup.
With respect to claim 20, Steenstrup as modified by Kawaguchi discloses a plurality of retainers 40 each configured to be insertable into each corresponding one of the plurality of filter screen units to trap the corresponding ones of the plurality of filter screen units within the corresponding receptacle in the main body, as shown in Figs. 3 and 12 of Kawaguchi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kawaguchi lacks the new limitations added to claim 1 regarding the screen protruding into the slurry chamber: Steenstrup teaches the new limitation of claim 1, as stated above.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kawaguchi lacks the new claims 16-20: The combination of Steenstrup and Kawaguchi teach the limitations of new claims 16-20, as stated above.
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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights