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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 18 JUNE 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 16 has been acknowledged.
Pending Claims: 16-30
Cancelled Claims: 1-15
In view of the amendment to claim 16, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 18 JUNE 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 16, that Partti does not teach a gap provided in the border, such that an outlet opening extending laterally through the border is formed by the gap because the drainage duct 6c of Partti is internal to the filter plate and thus does not pass through any border, as the upper portion of the plate above the duct is considered to be ‘the border’. Therefore, instant claim 16 is allowable (Arguments filed 18 JUNE 2026, Page 7 to Page 8, Figure).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, it appears as though the perspective of Fig. 5, which is a cut-away of the discharge duct, is causing confusion. Fig. 5 (taken from Applicant’s modified drawing on page 8) shows an intact upper section of the duct, seen circled below. However, this image only shows the upper and lower boundaries of the border, which appear to be intact.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When one looks at Fig. 7A and Fig. 10A, reproduced below for reference, the border will have a rectangular prism shaped duct (Fig. 5, #6c) which clearly passes through the upraised border seen in Fig. 10A. If the border simply had the intact upper section seen in Fig. 5 around the entirety of the filter plate, the filtrate would leak out around every side due to the gap. The border is considered to be the entire raised section around the edge of the filtrate vat and so the ducts (Fig. 5, #6c) must pass through the border in order to allow for the egress of filtrate from the filtrate vat. Therefore, the drainage duct is a gap provided in the border, such that an outlet opening extending laterally through the border is formed by the gap and instant claim 16 is not allowable.
PNG
media_image2.png
264
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
350
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 16, that Partti does not teach on the vat side of the filter plate, a recessed portion of the filter plate body situated at the outlet opening, the recessed portion being recessed with respect to the bottom of the filtrate vat because the duct is considered to be internal to the filter plate and thus cannot be located on a vat side since it is not located on any particular side of the filter plate. Therefore instant claim 16 is allowable (Arguments filed 18 JUNE 2026, Page 8, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, whether the duct is internal or not, the location on a vat side or press side is clearly delineated by the filter plate itself. Fig. 5 from Partti has been reproduced below for reference. Partti discloses that the duct (Fig. 5, #6c) is on the same side of the filter plate (Fig. 5, #6) as the filtrate vat (Fig. 5, #6a), meaning that the recessed part of the plate that is formed at the entrance to the duct is located on the vat side of the filter plate. Therefore, Partti discloses on the vat side of the filter plate, a recessed portion of the filter plate body situated at the outlet opening, the recessed portion being recessed with respect to the bottom of the filtrate vat and instant claim 16 is not allowable.
PNG
media_image4.png
474
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from modifying the duct or drainage outlet of Partti because the outlet must precisely seal against the coupling portion and so it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Partti to arrive at the instant claim 16. Therefore instant claim 16 is allowable (Arguments filed 18 JUNE 2026, Page 8, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, the argument against a combination of prior art is rendered moot because the rejection falls under 35 U.S.C. 102 with a single reference. Therefore, there is no modified prior art and instant claim 16 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that instant claims 17-30 are allowable because they depend upon instant claim 16 and instant claim 16 is allowable (Arguments filed 18 JUNE 2026, Page 8, Paragraph 4 to Page 9).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 16 is not allowable and so instant claims 17-30 are also not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 16, 19-20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Partti (International Patent Application No. WO 2017162924 A1) hereinafter Partti.
Regarding Claim 16, Partti discloses filter plates for horizontal pressure filters (i.e., A filter plate for a horizontal plate and frame-type filter; Page 1, Lines 5-10) wherein the filter plate element is (i.e., the filter plate comprising; Fig. 5, #6)
formed of plate (i.e., a rigid plate-like body) and has a closed filter chamber (i.e., with a frame side; Fig. 5, #6d) and a filtrate vat (i.e., and a vat side; Fig. 5, #6a; Page 4, Line 23 to Page 5, Line 13)
in which the vat side receives filtrate through the filter element (Fig. 5, #7) when the filter plates are pushed together (Page 5, Lines 3-13), which means the vat side has a lateral wall with an upper surface such that the filter element can be supported (i.e., a border on the vat side of the body having at least an inner lateral wall and an upper surface, the border being elevated a distance from a portion of the filter plate delimited within the border), wherein the filtrate vat is not a separate component, but is formed on the plate element (i.e., wherein the border is integrally formed by the rigid plate-like body of the filter plate; Page 12, Lines 5-13)
wherein the filtrate vat is not a separate component, but is formed on the plate element (i.e., wherein a filtrate vat is formed by the filter plate, wherein the inner lateral wall of the border forms a lateral wall of the filtrate vat, and a portion of the filter plate delimited by the border forms a bottom of the filtrate vat; Page 12, Lines 5-13), as the filtrate vat is formed as part of the filter plate the borders of the filtrate vat with lateral walls and upper surfaces and bottom of the filtrate vat must be created by the filter plate,
wherein the filter plates have a drainage duct (Fig. 5, #6c) with a drainage outlet (i.e., wherein a gap is provided in the border, such that an outlet opening extending laterally through the border is formed by the gap; Fig. 5, #6b) that discharges filtrate out of the filtrate vat (i.e., thereby providing a fluid drainage route from the filtrate vat; Page 12, Lines 5-13)
and that the filtrate vat elements are formed on the plate elements as recessed portions of the plate elements (Page 5, Lines 3-20) wherein Fig. 5 demonstrates that the outlet channel (Fig. 5, #6c) is recessed compared to the filtrate vat (Fig. 5, #6a), shown below (i.e., wherein the filter plate comprises, on the var side of the filter plate, a recessed portion of the rigid plate-like body of the filter plate situated at the outlet opening, the recessed portion being recessed with respect to the bottom of the filtrate vat).
PNG
media_image5.png
436
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Parti further discloses that the filtrate vat is formed on the plate element (Page 12, Lines 5-7) wherein filtrate is separated from a slurry and led to the collector elements through the outlet ducts (i.e., wherein the border has an outer lateral wall, wherein the border is elevated for a distance at least from a portion of the filter plate delimiting the border; Page 8, Lines 17-30). As described, the border clearly has an outer lateral wall and the border is elevated such that the filtrate vat can accommodate filtrate within.
Regarding Claim 20, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Parti further discloses that the filtrate vat is formed on the plate element (Page 12, Lines 5-7) wherein filtrate is separated from a slurry and led to the collector elements through the outlet ducts (i.e., wherein the border is solid; Page 8, Lines 17-30). As described, the border must be solid, otherwise filtrate would leak in places other than the outlet ducts.
Regarding Claim 27, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Partti further discloses that through-holes are provided on the filter plate element for mounting the collector elements (Fig. 5, #1), where the collector elements are located on the periphery of the filter plate (i.e., wherein the filter plate comprises a plurality of attachment holes running along the periphery of the filter plate and extending therethrough; Page 10, Lines 11-18) wherein the holes on the collection element are shown to interface with the side of the filter plate and not contacting the filtrate vat (i.e., wherein the plurality of attachment holes are not in contact with filtrate within the filtrate vat, when in use; Fig. 7a).
PNG
media_image6.png
260
346
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partti (International Patent Application No. WO 2017162924 A1) hereinafter Partti.
Regarding Claim 17, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Parti does not explicitly teach wherein the border is elevated for a distance of between 10 mm - 40 mm from the portion of the filter plate delimited within the border. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than Partti, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 18, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Parti does not explicitly teach wherein the width of the border is between 15mm- 200 mm. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than Partti, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 21, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Parti does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the gap is between 150 mm- 300 mm. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than Partti, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hermann et al (German Patent No. DE 19905674 C1) hereinafter Hermann.
Regarding Claim 22, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Partti teaches a plate shape but does not explicitly teach wherein the filter plate is of a generally rectangular shape having a first flank side and a second flank side parallel to the first flank side, and a first end side and a second end side parallel to the first end side, wherein the first and second end sides extend in a direction transverse to a direction in which the first and second flank sides extend, wherein the first and second flank sides have a length greater than that of the first and second end sides wherein one or more gaps of the border are formed on either or both of the first flank side and the second flank side.
However, Hermann teaches in Fig. 1 (modified Fig. 1 seen below) that the shape of the filter plate for a horizontal filter press (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation) is rectangular in shape (i.e., wherein the filter plate is of a generally rectangular shape having a first flank side and a second flank side parallel to the first flank side, and a first end side and a second end side parallel to the first end side, wherein the first and second end sides extend in a direction transverse to a direction in which the first and second flank sides extend, wherein the first and second flank sides have a length greater than that of the first and second end sides) with the long sides containing the inlet and exit holes (i.e., wherein one or more gaps of the border are formed on either or both of the first flank side and the second flank side; Paragraphs 0014-0015, Machine Translation). Figs. 4 and 5 show the tubes for the feed channel (Fig. 4, #21) in connecting part (Fig. 4, #18) and connector (Fig. 5, #33) with comparable structure to connector (Fig. 4, #18) is for filtrate discharge with a guide channel (Fig. 5, #37; Paragraphs 0014-0015, Machine Translation). Hermann further teaches that the filter plate shape is such that the filter plate is held by the frame in a way that unimpeded thermal expansion is ensured and bending of the plate corner areas is avoided (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image7.png
435
584
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hermann is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to filter plates for a horizontal filter press (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter plate as taught by Partti with the shape and placement of inlet and outlets on the long side as taught by Hermann because the shape and placement of inlet and outlets on the long side would allow the frame to hold the filter plate in a way that does not impede thermal expansion and prevents bending of the filter plate.
Regarding Claim 23, Partti in view of Hermann makes obvious the filter plate of claim 22. Partti in view of Hermann does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the first and second flank side is 1.5 to 3 times that of the first and second end side. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than Partti in view or Hermann, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 24, Partti in view of Hermann makes obvious the filter plate of claim 22. Partti further teaches that collector elements (Fig. 1, #1) can be seen on both sides of the plate elements (Fig. 1, #6) at the corners, which is where the outlet ducts discharge the filtrate (i.e., wherein a gap of the border is formed in a corner region between a flank side and an end side; Page 2, Lines 15-24).
PNG
media_image8.png
500
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partti in view of Hermann as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of C. Lynn Peterson (US Patent No. 2933190 A) hereinafter Peterson.
Regarding Claim 25, Partti in view of Hermann makes obvious the filter plate of claim 22. Partti in view of Hermann does not teach wherein the filter plate comprises one or more lateral indentation portion provided on either or both of the first flank side and the second flank side, wherein the lateral indentation portion is arranged to circumvent suspension elements and/or support elements of a filter plate frame on which the filter plate is to be supported.
However, Peterson teaches a filter press plate and frame for a horizontal filter press with ears or lugs (Fig. 10, #54) on the sides to suspend the plates and frames in a vertical position (i.e., wherein the filter plate comprises one or more lateral indentation portion provided on either or both of the first flank side and the second flank side, wherein the lateral indentation portion is arranged to circumvent suspension elements and/or support elements of a filter plate frame on which the filter plate is to be supported; Col. 6, Lines 7-29). See modified Fig. 10 below for indication of the indentations. Peterson further teaches that the invention provides a filter press plate and frame design that is faster and less labor intensive to clean (Col. 1, Lines 30-48).
PNG
media_image9.png
206
358
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Peterson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to plate and fame filter presses (Col. 1, Lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter plate made obvious by Partti in view of Hermann with the ears or lugs that have indentations as taught by Peterson because the filter plate would be faster and easier to clean.
Regarding Claim 26, Partti in view of Hermann in view of Peterson makes obvious the filter plate of claim 25. Peterson further teaches a filter press plate and frame for a horizontal filter press with ears or lugs (i.e., wherein the filter plate comprises one or more lateral widening portions provided on either or both of the first flank side and the second flank side; Fig. 10, #54) on the sides to suspend the plates and frames in a vertical position (i.e., wherein the lateral widening portions are arranged between lateral indentation portions adjacent to the widening portion, wherein the lateral widening portions are arranged to laterally overhang a filter plate frame intended to support the filter plate; Col. 6, Lines 7-29).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Haberle (US Patent No. 6365043 B1) hereinafter Haberle.
Regarding Claim 28, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Partti does not teach wherein the filter plate comprises a creeping-resistant material, chosen from a group comprising metals, FRP (fibre- reinforce plastics) materials, reinforced composite materials with a thermoset or thermoplastic matrix, and thermoset materials.
However, Haberle teaches that the support wall with plate frame can be molded using thermoplastic material (i.e., wherein the filter plate is of creeping-resistant material, chosen from a group comprising thermoset materials; Col. 2, Lines 38-44) with the benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process of the filter plate (Col. 1, Lines 15-63).
Haberle is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a filter plate for a filter press (Col. 1, Lines 3-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter plate taught by Partti to be molded using thermoplastic material as taught by Haberle because molding using thermoplastic material would simplify the manufacturing process of the filter plate.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Eisinga (US Patent No. 5792348 A) hereinafter Eisinga.
Regarding Claim 29, Partti anticipates the filter plate of claim 16. Partti does not teach wherein at least the filtrate vat is coated or lined with a vat liner the coating or vat liner being of a wear-resistant material chosen from a group comprising wear resistant polymers, such as thermoplastics including thermoplastic vulcanizates and thermoplastic elastomers, PUR and rubber.
However, Eisinga teaches filter plates constructed with an inner steel sheet with front and back panels composed of thermoplastic resin (i.e., wherein at least the filtrate vat is coated or lined with a vat liner the coating or vat liner being of a wear-resistant material chosen from a group comprising wear resistant polymers, such as thermoplastics including thermoplastic vulcanizates and thermoplastic elastomers; Abstract) with the benefit of a polypropylene coating being resistance to abrasion, heat, and chemicals (Col. 1, Lines 32-50).
Eisinga is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a plate for a filter press (Col. 1, Lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter plate as taught by Partti with the thermoplastic coating taught by Eisinga because the thermoplastic coating would enhance the resistance of the filter plate to abrasion, heat, and chemicals.
Regarding Claim 30, Partti in view of Eisinga makes obvious the filter plate of claim 29. Eisinga further teaches that the thermoplastic resin encompasses all of the exposed surfaces of the filter plate (i.e., wherein the coating or vat liner additionally covers either or both of the upper surface and the outer lateral wall of the border; Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights