DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
417
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pending Elected Claims
PNG
media_image2.png
280
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In claim 6, it is unclear what is intended by the recitation, “wedge wire of Vee-wire®.” It is unclear what specific generic structure Applicant intends by “Vee-wire®” if any, or how “Vee-wire®” differs from “wedge wire” if at all. Trademarks, by their very nature, are subject to change without notice, and hence, claim 6 is indefinite for that reason alone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
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)(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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IRVINE (U.S. 7,799,231 B2).
IRVINE discloses a liquid/solid separator system mounted on a mobile cart and connected to a process tank for reducing the rate at which fluids are consumed in manufacturing processes. Figures include 6 and 11 and particularly relevant. The system may include automation and also may include a shear-stepped screen including tilted wire wedge wires arranged at varying cant angles. The reference numerals (or relevant reference), of IRVINE have been inserted into the claims to map claim limitation correspondence to the structure of IRVINE:
1. A sieve panel, comprising: a plurality of shaped-wire screen elements (66) mounted to one or more support members (70) to define an upper panel end and a lower panel end, the plurality of shaped-wire screen elements arranged in a generally parallel relationship to define slots (65) between adjacent shaped-wire screen elements, each shaped wire element coupled to the one or more support members to selectively define a tilt angle (67) of each shaped-wire screen element relative to the one or more support members, wherein the tilt angle varies between upper panel end (80) and the lower panel end (81).
5. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein the tilt angle of each shaped-wire screen element is selected to project a leading edge (unlabeled; See flow line 74 in Fig. 6 which strikes the leading edge and is directed into the slot 65) of each shaped-wire screen element into a slurry flow to increase a liquid flow through the slots.
6. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein each shaped-wire screen element comprises a wedge wire of Vee-wire®. The shaped-wire screen elements (66) are seen to meet this “limitation”.
7. A pressure fed filter (20), comprising the sieve panel of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
537
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CONNOLLY (U.S. 4,422,937).
CONNOLLY discloses a reversible static screen for classifying and dewatering flowing slurries, the screen being inclined and having a flow or screening surface formed by laterally spaced screen wires disposed normal to the flow direction of the slurry and so spaced that the openings therebetween are narrower over the end portions than over the intermediate portion of the screen. The reference numerals (or other relevant reference/description), of CONNOLLY have been inserted into the claims to map claim limitation correspondence to the structure of CONNOLLY:
1. A sieve panel, comprising: a plurality of shaped-wire screen elements (4) mounted to one or more support members (5) to define an upper panel end and a lower panel end, the plurality of shaped-wire screen elements arranged in a generally parallel relationship to define slots (12) between adjacent shaped-wire screen elements, each shaped wire element coupled to the one or more support members to selectively define a tilt angle (theta – Fig. 5) of each shaped-wire screen element relative to the one or more support members, wherein the tilt angle varies between upper panel end (upper end of Fig. 3) and the lower panel end (lower end of Fig. 3).
3. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein a rate of change of the tilt angle varies between the upper panel end and the lower panel end. – See, for example, the paragraph bridging columns 3-4.
4. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein the plurality of shaped-wire screen elements mounted to one or more support members define an upper panel portion proximate the upper panel end and a lower panel portion proximate the lower panel end, wherein the upper panel portion and the lower panel portion are mirror images (See Fig. 3 and its description) of each other such that the upper panel end and lower panel end can be flipped to extend service life.
5. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein the tilt angle (theta – Fig. 5) of each shaped-wire screen element is selected to project a leading edge of each shaped-wire screen element into a slurry flow to increase a liquid flow through the slots (12).
6. The sieve panel of claim 1, wherein each shaped-wire screen element comprises a wedge wire of Vee-wire®. The shaped-wire screen elements (4) are seen to meet this “limitation”.
7. A pressure fed filter (1), comprising the sieve panel of claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
1023
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rate of change” as recited in dependent claim 3, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Response to Arguments of 13 October 2025
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments have been effective at removing those rejections no longer appearing above. No arguments against the rejection of dependent claim 6 were detected. Accordingly, that rejection has been maintained.
With respect to the drawing objection, Applicant has argued:
PNG
media_image5.png
154
643
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive. With respect the claimed “rate of change”, no conclusion about the “rate of change” can be made based upon what is depicted in FIGS. 3a and 3b. Rates are ordinarily depicted graphically. Or, the angles could be depicted and numerical values could be inserted into the figures calling out the angles so that a “rate of change” trend could be appreciated. However, Applicant’s disclosure does not provide written description support for either of these solutions. In this regard, angle 218 is defined in Figure 5. There, a straight rod section 214 and an element plane 213 define angle 218. The rod 214 depicted in both of FIGS. 3a and 3b is curved, and an element plane 213 is not depicted. Applicant’s specification states, “Various embodiments of systems, devices, and methods have been described herein. These embodiments are given only by way of example and are not intended to limit the scope of the claimed inventions.” To rely on FIGS. 3a and 3b in the manner asserted is against, or contrary to the express teachings of Applicant’s Specification and Applicant’s intent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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, JENNIFER DIETERLE can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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 1776