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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/21.
Applicant’s response of 5/8/24 indicated that claims 1-12 are generic, and claims 13-15 read on the specie 1. However, claim 10 is directed to subject matter in specie 2 and therefore claims 10 and 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Field US 6,059,967.
Claim 1, Field teaches a support grid assembly comprising: a central fluid manifold, including a mounting cylinder (52) and a panel mounting body (53), the panel mounting body having a lower wall (56) and an upper wall and including a plurality of sleeve openings (60) defined therebetween, the plurality of sleeve openings being spaced around the panel mounting body, and a plurality of screen panel assemblies (46), each screen panel assembly including a male connecting end (54) defining a panel assembly opening, the panel opening having a panel opening perimeter selected such that the male connecting end of each screen panel assembly is configured for slidable insertion through a corresponding one of the plurality of sleeve openings such that the male connecting end is located within a flow passage defined by the mounting cylinder, and wherein each screen panel assembly is individually, flexibly coupled to a corresponding sleeve opening such that each individual screen panel assembly can accommodate variations in the vessel floor (fig. 1-7, col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 9). The recitation of the assembly being for mounting on a vessel floor is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 11-12, Field further teaches each screen panel assembly includes a screen panel capable of filtering a fluid prior to the fluid entering an internal fluid connection area defined within each screen panel assembly (fig. 1-7); the central fluid manifold further comprises a cover plate (68) operably coupled to the panel mounting body (fig. 1-7); the cover plate defines a lower plate surface in communication with the mounting cylinder, the lower plate surface including a plurality of elongated members (72) attached to the lower plate surface (fig. 1-7); the plurality of elongated members have a member height such that the plurality of elongated members extend into a panel mounting body opening of the panel mounting body, the member height capable of modifying flow within the mounting cylinder (fig. 1-7); the plurality of elongated members are arranged in a non-parallel, radial arrangement relative to a central axis of the cover plate (fig. 1-7); the mounting cylinder defines a mounting flange, the panel mounting body being operably connected to the mounting flange (fig. 1-7); the panel mounting body comprise a pair of panel body structures (the inner and outer surfaces), each panel body structure being individually, operably coupled to the mounting flange (fig. 1-7); and the panel mounting body further comprises a panel flange assembly (at 62) operably mounted over each sleeve opening, each panel flange assembly having a panel flange opening (at 62) for operably receiving the panel assembly opening (fig. 1-7).
Claims 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field US 6,059,967 in view of Saul et al. US 2014/0027369.
Claim 4, Field teaches a cover plate but does not teach the cover plate comprising a pair of plate members each including a central flange for coupling the plate members.
Saul teaches a support grid assembly comprising a central fluid manifold including a mounting cylinder and a panel mounting body, the central fluid manifold comprising a cover plate (218) operably coupled to the panel mounting body, where the cover plate comprises a pair of plate members, each plate member including a central flange (fig. 12). Providing a cover plate with two plate members with central flanges is a known technique in the art as demonstrated by Saul and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6, Filed teaches the cover plate defines an upper surface but does not teach a cover screen panel.
Saul teaches a cover plate having an upper surface including a cover screen (90) (fig. 2-5). Providing the cover plate with a cover screen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to provide additional filter area (paragraph 44-45). Additionally, providing flow of filtrate through the bottom of the assembly is a known technique as demonstrated by Saul. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 13 has been rewritten in independent form and is allowable for the reasons stated in the previous office action.
Claims 14-15 are allowable as depending from claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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 on 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778