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
The Amendment filed November 10th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 8th, 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §103.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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, 5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore (GB-2429416-A) in view of Scholten (US4322299).
Regarding claim 1, Dore discloses a system for filtering microfibres contained in a liquid effluent (Dore p. 2 lines 14-15 that the invention is a washing machine to overcome the prior art problem of which the build-up of lint and the stickiness of other constituents of the filtered residue [lines 8-9] and specifically refers to laundry washing articles such as hospital linen, hospital workwear which are commonly made of microfiber due to their properties of stain resistance and antimicrobial properties, further on p. 3 line 13 Dore discloses that the sand filter is capable of filtering particles of the order of 75 microns which would filter microfibres from 75 to 1000 microns in diameter) from a textile treatment device (Dore abstract "washing
machine"), the system being intended to be connected to a drain pipe of the textile treatment device (Dore p. 5 lines 6-8), the system comprising at least: an enclosure comprising a granular medium (Dore "gravel p.8 line 13) occupying a portion of the space of the enclosure (Dore "tube" p. 8 line 12) the granular medium being arranged on a support (Dore bottom "gravel retention members" at the p. 8 line 15) so as to leave a free volume in the enclosure above the granular medium (Dore Fig. 2 shows free volume), the support being permeable to at least the liquid effluent (Dore p.8 "foraminous" gravel retention members), means allowing passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium (Dore "pipe" #18 p. 8 line 28), comprising at least one opening (Dore "orifices" #13 p. 8 line 20) provided in the enclosure and arranged above the granular medium (Dore Fig. 2), wherein the granular medium is configured to retain at least a part of microfibers contained in the liquid effluent percolating therethrough (Dore p. 8 last paragraph describes the various size gravel and the particles they are capable of “trapping” or retaining), means for discharging the liquid effluent (Dore "pipe" #19 p. 5 line 33), comprising at least one opening provided in the enclosure and arranged under the support of the granular medium (Dore Fig. 2), and means for connection to means for regeneration by fluidization (Dore "valve" #38 Fig. 2 and p.8 line 4) of the granular medium comprising at least one opening (Dore valves #38 [Fig. 1] located above and below lead to "orifices" #13 and #14) provided in the enclosure and arranged above the granular medium (Dore orifice #13 is above
the medium Fig. 2).
Dore does not disclose the means for regeneration by fluidization comprising means for gas suction and/or gas insufflation and/or delivering gas through the granular medium.
Scholten is directed to the regeneration and cleaning of granular filter media used in liquid filtration systems and lies squarely in the same technical field as the present application as well as Dore, names the filtration of contaminated liquid effluent using a granular medium that must be periodically regenerated to maintain performance. Scholten specifically addresses the recognized problem that liquid-only backwashing is often ineffective at removing contaminants that adhere to and lodge between granules of a filter bed. To remedy this deficiency, Scholten teaches regenerating a granular medium by introducing gas (air) into and through the granular bed (Scholten col. 7 par. 1), either alone or in combination with liquid backwash, so as to agitate, fluidize, and scour the media, thereby dislodging accumulated solids and restoring filtration efficiency. Scholten explains that air scour improves cleaning effectiveness, reduces fouling, and allows regeneration to be performed at lower liquid flow rates (Scholten col. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the granular filtration system of Dore to further include regeneration of the granular medium by gas insufflation as taught by Scholten. Dore expressly discloses regeneration of a granular filter medium by liquid backflushing and acknowledges that accumulated lint and contaminants adhere to the gravel and must be periodically removed to maintain filtration efficiency. Scholten explains that it was well known in the art that water-only backwashing is often ineffective at adequately scouring entrapped solids from granular media and that the use of air wash or air scout, either alone or in combination with water, significantly improves cleaning effectiveness by agitating and fluidizing the granular bed and dislodging contaminants adhered to the media surfaces. Scholten further teaches that air-assisted backwashing improves removal of solids while allowing lower water backwash rates, thereby improving operational efficiency and reducing system burden. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the air insufflation of Scholten into Dore’s existing backflush regeneration system in order to improve the effectiveness of granular media regeneration, reduce fouling and enhance overall filtration performance.
Regarding claim 2, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the means for connection to the means for regeneration by fluidization (Dore "valves" #38 Fig. 2) of the granular medium comprise an additional opening provided in the enclosure and arranged under the support of the granular medium (Dore "orifices" #14 is below the medium, where by suggestion of Scholten Fig. 1 “pipe” #21 the additional opening provides air supply), the additional opening of the connection means being able to be connected to means for gas intake (as suggested by Scholten Fig. 1 pipe #21) or gas insufflation.
Regarding claim 3, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the means for discharging the liquid effluent comprise a circuit external to the enclosure (Dore Fig. 1 circuit of pipes #36 connected to valves leading through flow indicator #24 to holding tank #9), connected to the enclosure to bypass the granular medium in case of accumulation of the liquid effluent in the free volume of the enclosure above the granular medium (Dore p.6 lines 15-20 details holding tank #9 contains float indicators which indicate level in tank when fluid has accumulated above granular medium to open 3-way valve #30 to allow bypass of pipe #35 to redirect to pipe #25).
Regarding claim 5, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the circuit external to the enclosure further comprises a liquid detector (Dore "flow indicator" #24 Fig. 2 and p. 6 line 2) , preferably connected to an alarm (preferable embodiments are not limiting).
Regarding claim 7, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising means for controlling (Dore "valves" #38, #15 and #16 Fig. 1) the means for passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium and/or the means for discharging the liquid effluent, and/or the means for connection to the means for regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium.
Regarding claim 8, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the control means comprise at least one 2-way valve and/or at least one 3-way valve (Dore p. 5 line 21) and/or at least one non-return valve and/or a rotary 6-way valve.
Regarding claim 9, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a settling chamber and/or a cyclone separation chamber and/or an accumulation chamber for the liquid effluent (Dore "holding tank" p. 5 line 13), arranged upstream from the enclosure (Dore holding tank is both upstream and downstream of said enclosure) and connected to the means for passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium (Dore holding tank #9 is connected to means for passage by percolation through circuit of pipes #35 #18 and valves #15 #16 Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising means for injecting at least one flocculant agent into the liquid effluent (Dore "dosing machine" #37 p. 8 line 2), the injection means being arranged for injection of the at least one flocculant agent into the liquid effluent upstream from the granular medium (Dore dosing machine is linked to the main washing machine upstream of the granular medium [p. 8 lines 1-7] and also indicated to be capable of "individually" flushing through the supply valves #38 which are both upstream and downstream of the medium).
Regarding claim 11, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the granular medium comprises sand particles, crushed glass beads or raw glass beads, particles based on natural or synthetic zeolite, alumina, or resins or plastic (Dore discloses that the granular medium is gravel or sand [p.3 line 12], gravel often comprises natural zeolites).
Regarding claim 12, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the granular medium comprises particles with size ranging between 0.1 mm and 2 cm (Dore "8mm" p. 8 line 22) for at least 80 wt.% of the particles, preferably ranging between 0.3 mm and 2.5 mm for at least 90 wt.% of said particles.
Regarding claim 13, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a liquid distributor (Dore "gravel retention members" #41 Fig. 2 includes a top member that is foraminous p. 8 line 15) is arranged between the granular medium and the opening of the means for passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium and/or, when the means for regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium comprise gas suction means, a gas distributor is arranged between the granular medium and an opening intended for intake of the gas of the gas suction means.
Regarding claim 14, Dore in view of Scholten discloses a method for filtering microfibres contained in a liquid effluent from a textile treatment device (Dore abstract using "water filtering system for a washing machine"), the method being implemented by means of a system for filtering microfibres as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising at least the following steps: A) carrying out at least one phase of filtering the microfibres, the filtration phase comprising at least one passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium through the agency of at least the means for passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium (Dore abstract "during a washing process ... "), and discharge of the filtered liquid effluent through the agency of at least the means for discharging the liquid effluent (Dore abstract "and thence to storage tank 9" which occurs by means of discharging "pipe" #19), B) carrying out a phase of regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium by connecting the means for connection to the means for regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium with the means for regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium (Dore abstract "at predetermined intervals filtration ... is suspended and the flow of water therethrough is reversed to backflush the gravel").
Regarding claim 15, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the method as claimed in claim 14. Dore further discloses repeated filtration operation prior to regeneration of the granular medium, and Scholten teaches that the frequency of regeneration relative to filtration cycles is a routine design parameter selected based on fouling and system efficiency. Specifying that the filtration step is repeated between 50 and 150 times prior to regeneration represents an obvious optimization of a known process variable and does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 16, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the method as claimed in claim 14 comprising, prior to step A), a step of pretreatment of the liquid effluent, the step of pretreatment of the liquid effluent comprising at least one injection of at least one flocculant agent into the liquid effluent and/or at least one settling of the liquid effluent and/or at least one cyclone separation of the liquid effluent (Dore p. 5 lines 9-14 describe prefiltering water from tank 3 where it is then stored in tank 9, such storing would allow the liquid effluent to settle and thus satisfy the second limitation of the 3 listed options).
Regarding claim 17, Dore in view of Scholten discloses a method as claimed in claim 14 comprising, prior to step B), a phase of draining said granular medium (Dore p. 7 lines 12-17 “water leaves the filters” and leads to a drain), carried out through the agency of gas suction means connected to said system so as to generate a descending gas flow through said granular medium, and/or a phase of drying said granular medium, carried out through the agency of means for increasing the temperature of said granular medium. (Dore discloses that the temperature of the water in the storage tank is heated in the range of 40°C [p. 6 lines 5-8] which would in turn heat the granular medium upon introduction to the filtering apparatus).
Regarding claim 18, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the filtration and regeneration phases are controlled by means for controlling (Dore "valves" #38, #15 and #16 Fig. 1) the means for passage by percolation of the liquid effluent through the granular medium and/or the means for discharging the liquid effluent, and/or the means for connection to the means for regeneration by fluidization of the granular medium.
Regarding claim 19, Dore in view of Scholten discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising at least one step subsequent to the phase of regeneration by fluidization, consisting in collecting the microfibres from the regeneration phase (Dore p. 2 line 31 through p. 3 line 1 describes that after backflushing the gravel in the water loosens lint and other filtered residues which are caught up in the water and carried to the drain).
Regarding claim 20, Dore in view of Scholten discloses a textile washing device comprising at least one system for filtration of the microfibres contained in a liquid effluent as claimed in claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore (GB-2429416-A) in view of Scholten (US4322299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bresciani (FR-2742352-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 4, Dore in view of Scholten disclose the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said means for discharging said liquid effluent comprise a pipe so as to bypass said granular medium in case of accumulation of said liquid effluent in said free volume of said enclosure above said granular medium.
Dore in view of Scholten does not disclose that the pipe is running through at least the granular medium.
Bresciani discloses a system for filtering liquid effluent (Bresciani abstract "liquid") using
a granular medium (Bresciani p.5 par. 9 "depth filter, such as for example sand") wherein said
means for discharging said liquid effluent comprise a pipe (Bresciani p.5 par. 9 "overflow
tubing") so as to bypass said granular medium in case of accumulation of said liquid effluent
(use of an overflow prevention tubing indicates conditions of accumulation of liquid effluent in
excess) in said free volume of said enclosure above said granular medium (Bresciani
embodiment of Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
combine the overflow tubing of Bresciani with the system of Dore to include a means for
discharging liquid effluent to bypass said granular medium. This rearrangement of parts would have the predictable benefit of preventing accumulation of liquid when the filtration medium
required cleaning or to release the backflushing fluid rising above the media.
Regarding claim 6, Dore in view of Scholten and further in view of Bresciani discloses the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein said pipe of said means for discharging said liquid effluent further comprises a liquid detector (Dore “flow detector” #31 Fig. 1 connected to pipe #25 by suggestion of Bresciani), preferably connected to an alarm.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore (GB-2429416-A) in view of Scholten (US4322299) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wu (CN-104514122-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 16, Dore in view of Scholten discloses a method as claimed in claim 14 comprising, prior to step A), a step of pretreatment of said liquid effluent, said step of pretreatment of said liquid effluent comprising at least one settling of said liquid effluent (Dore p. 5 lines 9-14 describe prefiltering water from tank 3 where it is then store in tank 9 to settle ready to be used).
Dore in view of Scholten does not disclose the option of at least one injection of at least one flocculant agent into said liquid effluent.
Wu discloses a method of for filtering a liquid effluent from a textile treatment device (Wu p.2 “Washing machine having a self-cleaning filtering function”) which further comprises a step of pretreatment of said liquid effluent which comprises at least one injection of at least one flocculant agent into said liquid effluent (Wu p.5 par. 1 describes addition of flocculating agent prior to filtering). Wu further discloses that the flocculation reaction generates flocs floating on the water surface to ensure sufficient separation of the dirt and the clean water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teaching of Wu with the method of Dore in view of Scholten to include at least one injection of at least one flocculant agent into said liquid effluent. There would have achieve the predictable outcome of generating floc (Wu p. 6 par. 1 “the flocculation reaction generates flocs floating on the water surface” to ensure sufficient separation of the dirt and the clean water) which would easily separate the dirt from the water where it would provide a means for achieving the goal of filtering and cleaning the water for reuse in the system.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779