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 .
Representative Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
594
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 29 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). As indicated by Applicant, claims 1-18 will be examined. Rejoinder of dependent claims is possible, should allowable claims be found.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13,17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of FARAM (U.S. 2006/0043010 A1) and MARQUIS-MARTIN (U.S. 2012/0098254 A1).
The structure meeting the claimed limitations has been parenthetically mapped into the claims using the reference numerals of the reference, and/or descriptive text of the patent or pre-grant publication as appropriate.
FARAM discloses a separator comprising an inlet module (20) and a chamber (2) defined by a chamber wall (8) having a chamber wall opening (26), the inlet module (20) comprising an attachment portion (56) and a projecting portion (unlabeled terminating at outlet 30) extending from the attachment portion (56), wherein the attachment portion (56) is configured to be coupled to the chamber wall (8) and comprises an inlet (26) for receiving into the inlet module (20) liquid passing through the chamber wall opening (16), wherein the projecting portion (unlabeled terminating at outlet 30) comprises an outlet (30) directed such that the liquid exits the inlet module (20) and creates a circulating flow within the chamber (2) about a central axis (X) of the chamber (Figs. 1-2), wherein the projecting portion (unlabeled terminating at outlet 30) is offset from the attachment portion (56) such that a gap is formed between the projecting portion (unlabeled terminating at outlet 30) and the chamber wall (8) through which the circulating flow can pass, wherein the projecting portion (unlabeled terminating at outlet 30) comprises a first wall (32) defining the gap, a second wall (unlabeled facing central axis) opposing the first wall (32), a first side wall (34) connecting the first and second walls at a first side of the inlet module (20) and a second side wall (36) opposing the first side wall and connecting the first and second walls at a second side of the inlet module, and wherein the second side wall is continuous and the first side wall defines the outlet (30) such that the outlet (30) is directed tangentially with respect to the central axis and such that the liquid exits the inlet module (20) in a tangential direction with respect to the central axis (X - Figs. 3-4).
The only difference between the invention defined in claim 1 and the disclosure of FARAM is "a gap formed between the projecting portion and the chamber wall through which the circulating flow can pass" recited in claim 1 and identified by Applicant with reference numeral 76 in Examiner annotated Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
1158
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MARQUIS-MARTIN discloses flow managing members for a basin (see Fig. 63). One or more of figures 24-33 depict a vortex valve 10 comprising a first portion 76 and a second portion 78 designed to be spaced from the wall of the basin, thus defining a gap.
In view of the teachings of MARQUIS-MARTIN, it would have been obvious to space the projecting portion of FARAM from the wall of the basin of FARAM in order to avoid wall erosion by fluid impingement forces and/or avoid impeding fluid flow through the system. It is considered that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the light of the the teachings of MARQUIS-MARTIN, would consider this difference as an obvious contribution to improve the working function of the invention. Provision of a gap between the projecting portion and the chamber wall to minimize the flow disruption/obstruction aligns with the established engineering practices. Such an enhancement would be naturally envisioned by a person skilled in the art in view of the teachings of MARQUIS-MARTIN, in order to mitigate flow interference, minimize the potential for turbulence or eddies that could disrupt solids settling, and facilitate the establishment of more uniform flow patterns within the chamber.
Regarding dependent claim 2,
2. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wall (32), the second wall (unlabeled facing central axis), the first side wall (34) and the second side wall (36) define a passageway (28) fluidly connecting the inlet (26) to the outlet (30).
Regarding dependent claim 3,
The lower portion of the projecting portion tapers toward the bottom as shown in Figs.1-5.
3. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway continuously decreases along at least a portion of the passageway (28) between the inlet (26) and the outlet (30).
Regarding dependent claims 4-10 and 12,
The lower portion of the projecting portion tapers toward the bottom of the inlet module (20) as shown in Figs.1-5. To accomplish that taper or reduced cross-section using curved walls (e.g., concave, convex, etc.) or planar walls (disclosed by FARAM) with curved or planar walls, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results specifically associated therewith, would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan. As modified, the structure of the references as combined above would meet the claimed geometric orientations.
The “curves” or specific shapes of claims 4-10 and 12 are not seen to be patentable distinguished from the references as combined above. Shape, absent a showing of unexpected results specifically associated therewith, is not seen to patentably distinguish utility patent claims. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
4. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second side wall curves towards the outlet in a direction towards the outlet such that the projecting portion converges toward the outlet on a first plane parallel to the chamber wall.
5. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 4, wherein the curve of the second side wall towards the outlet is convex.
6. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wall curves towards the outlet in a direction towards the outlet such that the projecting portion converges toward the outlet on a second plane perpendicular to the chamber wall.
7. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 6, wherein the curve of the first wall towards the outlet is concave.
8. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wall curves towards the first side wall and the second side wall on a third plane perpendicular to the chamber wall.
9. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 8, wherein the curve of the first wall towards the first side wall and the second side wall is convex.
10. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second wall is planar.
12. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first side wall does not curve on a plane parallel to the chamber wall.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
As shown in Figs. 1-5 of FARAM.
11. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outlet (30) is defined at a distal end of the first side wall (34).
Regarding dependent claim 13,
See Figs. 1 and 2 of FARAM.
13. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the attachment portion comprises a first bypass opening (see entrance to bypass duct 24 above weir 42), wherein at least a portion of the first bypass opening is disposed on an opposing side of the inlet to the outlet.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
Since FARAM teaches manufacture by “moulding”, the walls would be integral or “continuous”.
17. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wall and the second wall are continuous.
Regarding dependent claim 18,
FARAM has both a “single inlet” (26) and a “single outlet” (30).
18. (Original) A separator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the projecting portion has a single inlet, wherein the inlet to the projecting portion is defined by the attachment portion and wherein the projecting portion has a single outlet which is defined by the first side wall.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARAM (U.S. 2006/0043010 A1) and MARQUIS-MARTIN (U.S. 2012/0098254 A1).
as applied to claims 1-13,17 and 18 above, and further in view of PETERS (U.S. 2006/0102543 A1).
Claims 14 and 15 differ from FARAM and MARQUIS-MARTIN as applied above by specifying “a second bypass opening, wherein at least a portion of the first bypass opening is disposed on an opposing side of the second bypass opening to the outlet” (claim 14) and “the second bypass opening is directed in the same direction as the outlet” (claim 15).
PETERS teaches:
[0024] During conditions of low storm water flow, all of the storm water that is collected within the collection basin 12 will pass through filtration and water treatment unit 24 prior to entering the storm sewer to which the storm sewer insert 10 is mounted. The storm water is induced to flow through the filtration and water treatment unit 24 by gravity. During conditions of heavy rainfall and flooding, however, the volume of storm water entering the collection basin 12 may be an excess of that which can be processed by the filtration and water treatment unit 24. In that event, excess storm water will be permitted to flow through a plurality of bypass openings 26 that are defined at an upper end of the substantially vertical sidewalls 14 of the collection basin 12.
In view of the teachings or PETERS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of FARAM and MARQUIS-MARTIN as combined above, to incorporate a plurality of opposing bypass openings 26 as depicted in at least Figs. 1,3 and 5, in order to address excess, or upset flows of storm water, as taught by PETERS, thus, meeting the limitations of dependent claims 14 and 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARAM (U.S. 2006/0043010 A1) and MARQUIS-MARTIN (U.S. 2012/0098254 A1).
as applied to claims 1-13,17 and 18 above, and further in view of BAILEY (U.S. 2015/0060346 A1).
Claim 16 differs from FARAM and MARQUIS-MARTIN as applied above by specifying, “wherein the attachment portion comprises a pair of flanges disposed on opposing sides of the attachment portion, each of the pair of flanges comprising one or more slots or holes for coupling the flanges to the chamber wall.”
BAILEY discloses a similar structure employing a mounting perimeter flange 15 including holes 15 for attachment to a wastewater collection basin.
In view of the teachings or BAILEY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of FARAM and MARQUIS-MARTIN as combined above, by employing a flange or flanges to securely attach the device of the references as combined above, to a wastewater catch basin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights