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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application, claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the art of record does not teach first and second chambers with baffle walls that present continuous vertical flange surfaces with connection areas that are clamped by a connection means, see modified rejections below, Richter teaches integral construction and stiffening ribs and flanges which appear to provide continuous vertical surfaces, and connections by welding. Additionally see new rejections in view of Firth.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11 and 12 recite and inlet and an outlet diffuser, diffuser is interpreted in light of the instant specification [0025-0028] to include an conduit comprising an upright conduit section, a discharge, one or more openings.
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.
Claims 1, and 21 recite the limitation of connection means, interpreted in view of the instant specification to include bolting or welding or equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claim 21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Firth (US PG Pub 2009/0071955).
With respect to claim 21, Firth teaches modular tanks with cooperating formations on end walls comprising a tank assembly including at least two tank sections adapted to be fitted together (abstract) cooperating formations on end walls limit relative movement between the tank sections at least in one direction when in the assembled position (0001-0004), tanks sections 20, 40, 60 which are fluidly connected (0024, Fig. 1-5, a reservoir comprising at least first and second separation chambers in fluid communication with each other), formations comprising cooperating flanges and fasteners on the adjacent end walls and a plurality of substantially spaced apart ribs with recesses, and baffles, the ribs on one end wall being disposed within the recesses in the other end wall (0006-0009, 0026-0032, chambers with baffle walls and peripheral flanges, end walls, ribs, and recesses, presenting continuous vertical surfaces with recessed areas formed on an opposite sides of continuous vertical surfaces and aligned), flanges with holes for bolts (0007, 0032, connection means that clamp the first and second recessed areas).
With respect to claim 25, the device of claim 21 is taught above. Firth teaches, wherein the cross-section of the effluent reservoir in which the double baffle wall resides is a vertical cross-section,
and at least a portion of the double baffle wall extends vertically (Figures).
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13, 14, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richter (US PG Pub 2006/0124640), or alternatively under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Firth (US PG Pub 2009/0071955).
With respect to claims 1 and 21, Richter teaches a plastic container (a reservoir) with two container parts (12, 14, at least first and second chambers in fluid communication with each other) connected to one another by a connection frame (26, 28) (abstract, Figs.), partition walls 30, 44, with stiffening ribs 36 in the middle section, serving as support formed integrally (0028-0032, an integrally formed double baffle wall residing within a cross-section of the reservoir configured to control the movement of fluid therethrough and to provide structural support to the effluent reservoir), partition wall 30/ribs 36 (first baffle wall) belonging to container 14 (first chamber) with frame 26 (first peripheral flange), partition wall 44 (second baffle wall adjacent to the first baffle wall to present the double baffle wall, Fig. 6) belonging to container 12 (second chamber) and frame 28 (second peripheral flange), frames 28, 26 of the container parts 14, 12, formed by the end faces of the open container parts 14, 12 and the end faces of the partition walls 30 and 44 (0031, second peripheral flange that directly contacts at least a portion of the first peripheral flange).
Examiner notes limitations of effluent, separation, effluent mixture, and the preamble of an effluent separation device are directed to an intended use, intended use of an apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114).
Applicant amended to require: the first peripheral flange presenting a first continuous vertical surface and first recessed areas formed on an opposite side of the first continuous vertical surface, the second peripheral flange presenting a second continuous vertical surface and second recessed areas formed on an opposite side of the second continuous vertical surface, the second continuous vertical surface directly contacting at least a portion of the first continuous vertical peripheral flange surface with the first and second recessed areas being aligned; and connection means that clamp the first and second recessed areas.
Richter teaches frames 26/28, partition walls, and ribs 36, 56, 58, 60, 62 as discussed above (first and second flanges), the ribs and frames forming a continuous vertical surface (0028-0032, Fig. 5, 8), which abut and offset/cooperate (0029-0036, Claim 6, Fig. 10, recessed areas formed on opposite sides of continuous vertical surfaces, and directly contacting), openings including sections 50, 52, through holes 38 (Fig. 5, 8, 0030-0033), providing apertures aligned, and the frames welded together, or screwed (0035-0037, connection means).
Alternatively with respect to the recessed areas, Firth teaches similar modular tanks with cooperating formations on end walls comprising a tank assembly including at least two tank sections adapted to be fitted together (abstract) cooperating formations on end walls limit relative movement between the tank sections at least in one direction when in the assembled position (0001-0004), tanks sections 20, 40, 60 which are fluidly connected (0024, Fig. 1-5, a reservoir comprising at least first and second separation chambers in fluid communication with each other), formations comprising cooperating flanges and fasteners on the adjacent end walls and a plurality of substantially spaced apart ribs with recesses, and baffles, the ribs on one end wall being disposed within the recesses in the other end wall (0006-0009, 0026-0032, chambers with baffle walls and peripheral flanges, end walls, ribs, and recesses, presenting continuous vertical surfaces with recessed areas formed on an opposite sides of continuous vertical surfaces and aligned), flanges with holes for bolts (0007, 0032, connection means that clamp the first and second recessed areas). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richter’s taught tanks to include formations as described by Firth, in order to limit relative movement between tanks sections.
With respect to claim 2, the device of claim 1, is taught above. Richter teaches wherein each of the first and second separation chambers comprise a hollow liquid-receiving reservoir defined by respective first and second monolithically- formed bodies (Figures, 0023).
With respect to claim 3, the device of claim 2, is taught above. Richter teaches filling and emptying opening 16, with regard to the rest, the two container parts are identically structured so that each container part can be manufactured by using the same blowing mold (0023, wherein the first and second monolithically-formed bodies have substantially identical or symmetrical construction).
With respect to claim 4, the device of claim 2, is taught above. Richter teaches connection frames are welded together (0008, 0021-0022, 0031-0036, Figures 5, 8, wherein the first and second monolithically- formed bodies are permanently affixed together at one or more positions around perimeters of the first and second apertures).
With respect to claim 6, the device of claim 1, is taught above. Richter teaches frames and ribs as discussed above, which appear flat (Figs., first and second continuous vertical peripheral flange surfaces are substantially flat, and wherein the first and second continuous vertical peripheral flange surfaces form an outer support structure for the double baffle wall).
With respect to claim 7, the device of claim 1, is taught above. Richter teaches apertures as discussed above, absent clarification of what is required for to allow a grease depleted effluent layer to pass therethrough, the art meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 8, the device of claim 7, is taught above. Richter teaches ribs arranged offset and cooperate, while Richter does not explicitly teach the second aperture has a smaller cross sectional area than the first aperture, absent evidence of criticality the selection of size of apertures would be a matter of design choice, further see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. changes in size are obvious, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide apertures with different sizes or tapers to facilitate mating between tank sections.
With respect to claim 9, the device of claim 7, is taught above. Richter teaches bores 40 (fig. 5, 0030, the first and second baffle walls each comprise one or more vent holes formed at a position above the one or more first and second apertures and which are aligned to allow fluid communication between the first and second separation chambers).
With respect to claims 10 and 13, the device of claim 1, is taught above. Richter teaches each of the first and second separation chambers comprise a substantially convex, rounded, and/or domed irregular shape end wall (Figures). While Richter teaches a single filling and emptying neck 16 an upper aperture formed therein configured to pass an inlet or outlet effluent therethrough, not having openings in each section, having openings in each section of a modular tank would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow assess to each tank section, as can be seen in Firth, Firth teaches a similar modular tank system as discussed above, and teaches each tank section comprising an opening through which liquid can be delivered (0032, Figures, having an upper aperture formed therein configured to pass an inlet or outlet effluent therethrough). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richter’s taught apparatus to include upper apertures in each chamber/section in order to allow access to each tank section, as apertures in each section are known in the art as shown by Firth, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 14, the device of claim 1, is taught above. While Richter teaches two container parts, not a third separation chamber in fluid communication with the first and second separation chambers, wherein the second separation chamber resides between the first and third separation chambers and comprises a third baffle wall opposite the second baffle wall, wherein the third separation chamber comprising a fourth baffle wall, the third and fourth baffle walls abutting each other to present a second double baffle wall residing within a second cross-section of the effluent reservoir, the use of multiple, modular tank sections is known in the art as shown by Firth, Firth teaches a similar system as discussed above and three tank sections 20, 40, 60, with formations between each (0034, Figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richter’s taught apparatus to include additional sections as taught by Firth, depending on capacity needs and as shown by Firth, the use of additional sections is known in the art and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 22, the device of claim 21 is taught above. Richter teaches through holes 38 on both sides of ribs 36, and bore holes 40/42 allow for an exchange of fluid in the region of the ribs (0030), the first baffle wall includes one or more first aperture, and the second baffle wall includes one or more second aperture aligned with the one or more first aperture to allow flow between the first and second chambers.
Applicant amended to require: two or more apertures, wherein the first peripheral flange extends around the two or more first apertures and the second peripheral flange extends around the two or more second apertures. Richter teaches holes 38 on both sides, and frames surrounding (two or more apertures, Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 23, the device of claim 22 is taught above. Richter teaches holes as discussed above, and frames 28, 26 of the container parts 14, 12, formed by the end faces of the open container parts 14, 12 and the end faces of the partition walls 30 and 44 (0031), the one or more first aperture is formed in one or more first protrusion that is coplanar with the first peripheral flange, and the one or more second aperture is formed in one or more second protrusion that is coplanar with the second peripheral flange.
Applicant amended to require: the apertures formed in protrusions coplanar with the continuous vertical surfaces. Richter teaches openings including sections 50, 52, through holes 38 (Fig. 5, 8, 0030-0033), providing apertures formed in protrusions coplanar with the continuous vertical surfaces.
With respect to claim 24, the device of claim 21 is taught above. Richter teaches large volume containers and volumes including 5000 liters (1321 gallons, title, 0027), the effluent reservoir has a liquid capacity of at least 1,000 gallons.
With respect to claim 25, the device of claim 21 is taught above. Richter teaches the cross-section of the effluent reservoir in which the double baffle wall resides is a vertical cross-section, and at least a portion of the double baffle wall extends vertically (Figures, in particular Fig. 1, 5).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (US PG Pub 2006/0124640), in view of Firth (US PG Pub 2009/0071955), in view of Estes (US 3,741,393)
With respect to claim 5, the device of claim 1, is taught above. Richter teaches stiffening ribs (the first and second baffle walls each comprise a plurality of ribs), while Richter does not teach radial ribs, absent evidence of criticality the selection of shape of the ribs would be a matter of design choice, further see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. changes in shape are obvious, and radial ribs are known in the art as shown by Estes. Estes teaches rigid tanks employing corrugated walls and intermediate bulkheads which separate the tanks into chambers for settling and clarifying (abstract), and in embodiments corrugations are provided to extend in radial directions in order to provide omnidirectional stiffening (C7/L39-52, Fig. 8, ribs extending radially outward from a central portion of the baffle walls). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richter’s tanks such that the stiffening ribs radially extend as taught by Estes in order to provide omnidirectional stiffening
Claims 11, 12 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (US PG Pub 2006/0124640), in view of Firth (US PG Pub 2009/0071955), in view of Bealer (US PG Pub 2002/0185426).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the device of claim 10, is taught above. Richter teaches large volume containers for use storage of liquids, underground (0001-0005, 0027), but does not teach the containers comprising an inlet diffuser installed within the first separation chamber, to direct at least a portion inlet in the direction of the end wall of the first separation chamber. Bealer teaches similar tanks comprising a tank separated into 5 sections or cells (0043, Figures), where cells could be used as oil water separators, settling tanks and for storage of water (0063), and each cell has a pipe 10 located near the lower section of the opposite wall (0043, Fig. 2) and in embodiments screen pipe 23 (0046, Fig. 2), diffusers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Richter’s apparatus to include diffusers as taught by Bealer, in order to treat stored water in multiple stages and with multiple treatment techniques, providing the ability and flexibility to change the treatment techniques during the operational life of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graves (8,137,544), similar system.
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 JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777