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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending:
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected.
Claims 1-2 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Claims 10-11 are objected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 04/24/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome claim objections and §102 rejections but do not overcome §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 02/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Amendments filed 04/24/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims do not overcome
On pgs. 8-13 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Figure 6 of Utsunomiya as a "pipe" and asserted that a slit (22b) is provided in that pipe. The Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is incorrect.
As illustrated in Figure 5 of Utsunomiya, reproduced above, (for purposes of explanation only, and applicant does not admit to the propriety) the component labeled 22 may correspond to the same structure as the compressed air jetting mechanism 1 Oc depicted in Figures 8 and 9 of the present application. Specifically, component 22 in Figure 5 of Utsunomiya may be equivalent to the discharge port member 15 shown in Figure 9 of the present application. As described at paragraph [0061] of the present application, the discharge port member 15 may be formed in a cup shape (e.g., a bowl shape, a hanging bell shape, or the like) as a whole, with its opening part facing downward. Accordingly, Figure 6 of Utsunomiya depicts the discharge port member 22 of Figure 5 with a slit 22b formed in its opening part. The component labeled 22a in Figure 6 is therefore not a "pipe" as characterized by the Examiner, and Utsunomiya fails to disclose or suggest at least the claimed pipe structure of the present application.
Regarding Kellerwessel, the Appicant submits is directed to a flotation cell used in mineral processing. Flotation is a technique in which finely ground ore is mixed with water and chemical flotation agents, and air bubbles are generated to cause useful minerals to adhere to the bubbles and float to the surface, thereby separating them from unwanted minerals. In Kellerwessel, several tubular elements 10 are laid across the entire bottom surface of the trough, and bubbles are ejected from openings 11 of these tubular elements (paragraph [0010]). The fine air bubbles capture solid particles present in the flotation slurry that are to be floated and carry them upward, from where they are discharged laterally into the foam discharge trough 8 (paragraph [0012]). Meanwhile, the remaining solid components present as residue in the flotation slurry are discharged from the trough 1 through opening 5 arranged in transverse wall 3 into chamber 6 (paragraph [0013]).
Kellerwessel thus clearly distinguishes between "solid particles," which float, and "solid components," which do not float (referred to as "non-floating solid components" at paragraph [0014]).
In contrast, the present disclosure provides pipes, recited as "a pipe" in claim 4, only on the inner sides of both side walls of the conduit body. The purpose of these pipes is to peel scum adhering to the side walls by ejecting air along the inner surfaces of those side walls (See, e.g., paragraph [0055] of the present application). The purpose, function, and effect of air ejection from the pipes of the present invention are therefore fundamentally different from those of Kellerwessel, in which tubular elements span the entire bottom of a flotation trough to generate bubbles for mineral separation. Thus, Kellerwessel fails to disclose or suggest the arrangement or function of the claimed pipe structure. Therefore, Utsunomiya and Kellerwessel, taken alone or in combination, would still fail to disclose or suggest at least:
a conduit body into which the raw water flows, and a compressed air jetting mechanism which is provided along a longitudinal direction of the conduit body that is inside a side wall formed along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body, and below a scum layer occurred in the conduit body, wherein the compressed air jetting mechanism is capable of jetting out compressed air from a plurality of points in the longitudinal direction into water, wherein the compressed air jetting mechanism comprises a pipe wherein a circumference wall is formed of an elastic material, having at least one slit penetrating the circumference wall, and a compressed air supply system connected to the pipe to supply compressed air having higher pressure than pressure in water where the pipe pressure is provided into the pipe, wherein the pipe is supported along the longitudinal direction on the side wall of the conduit body, and wherein the slit is closed when the pressure in the pipe is equal to or smaller than the water pressure and opened when the compressed air is supplied to the pipe. (Emphasis Added).
The Applicant therefore respectfully submits that independent claim 3, as amended, is allowable over the cited art for at least the above reasons. Moreover, although independent claim 5, as amended, differs in scope from allowable independent claim 3, at least similar arguments may be made with regard to independent claim 5, as amended, as were made for allowable independent claim 3, and the Applicant therefore submits that independent claim 5, as amended, is allowable at least for at least this reason.
Finally, the Applicant notes that dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 11 each depend from allowable independent claims 3 or 5. As such, each of these claims are also patentable over the cited art at least by virtue of dependency from an allowable claim, as well as for the additional subject matter recited therein.
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of the claims.
This argument is not persuasive because Kellerwessel is not relied upon to teach the slit arrangement on the pipe; Utsunomiya provides a teaching to arrange the slits on the pipe to arrive at the claimed invention.
First, the examiner respectfully agrees that the pipe 21 of Utsunomiya is different than that of the claimed invention which is also stated in the Office Action. Although, the slits 22a are located on rod-shaped body 22a, Fig. 6 of Utsunomiya shows that the rod-shaped body 22a and pipe material 21 are part of the same system air jetting means 20. Utsunomiya also teaches that the “longitudinal slits of a predetermined length are provided at equal intervals in the circumferential direction on the opening side of the rod-shaped body” (see pg. 9 Utsunomiya); thus having the result of “uniformly discharge air from the opening” (see pg. 7 Utsunomiya). Therefore, relocating the same longitudinal slits to the circumference of the wall of the pipe is merely a relocation of the discharge openings within the same air-supply assembly and the expected result – uniform air discharge – would have remained the same because the same compressed air is being discharged to the same type of longitudinal slits. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, the rejection of Utsunomiya is maintained.
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048) in view of Kellerwessel (DE 2709711).
Regarding claim 3, Utsunomiya teaches a conduit (sedimentation basin 1) distributing and supplying raw water to a sedimentation basin provided with a sewage treatment plant, comprising
a conduit body (body shown in Fig. 1) into which the raw water flows (indicated by arrow a in see Fig. 1), and
a compressed air jetting mechanism (air ejecting means 20) which is provided along a longitudinal direction of the conduit body (see Fig. 1) that is inside a side wall formed along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body (see Fig. 1), and below a scum layer occurred in the conduit body (see Fig. 4),
wherein the compressed air jetting mechanism is capable of jetting out compressed air from a plurality of points in the longitudinal direction into water (Fig. 5(b) and 6(b)).
wherein the compressed air jetting mechanism comprises a pipe (22a) wherein a circumference wall is formed of an ...material (steel or synthetic resin), having at least one slit (slit 22b) penetrating the circumference wall (see Fig. 6(b)), and (2) a compressed air supply system connected to the pipe to supply compressed air having higher pressure than pressure in water where the pressure is provided into the pipe (air supplied is sufficient to eject air from the rod below the water surface); and wherein the pipe is supported along the longitudinal direction on the side wall of the conduit body (Fig. 1 shows that pipe 22 is supported on the side of the sedimentation basin 1 and extends along the longitudinal direction of the sedimentation basin 1).
Utsunomiya further teaches that the pipe material is made of a synthetic resin and while it is known that some syntenic resin can be an elastic material.
Utsunomiya further discloses at least one slit (longitudinal slits 22b); however, Utsunomiya does not teach that said slit penetrates the circumference wall of the pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the slits of Utsunomiya by rearranging said slits on the circumference wall of the pipe because it achieves a predictable result, obviously resulting in uniformly discharging air from the air source with a reasonable expectation of success. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Utsunomiya does not teach (1) the circumference wall is formed of an elastic material; and wherein the slit is closed when the pressure in the pipe is equal to or smaller than the water pressure, and opened when the compressed air is supplied to the pipe.
In a related field of endeavor, Kellerwessel teaches a gaseous flotation cell (see ABS) comprising a circumference wall is formed of an elastic material; and wherein the slit is closed when the pressure in the pipe is equal to or smaller than the water pressure, and opened when the compressed air is supplied to the pipe (the openings close immediately when the gas pressure drops - due to the elasticity close so that neither flotation pulp nor solids penetrate into these openings can, see pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art effective filing date of invention to modify the pipe material of Utsunomiya to be of an elastic material as disclosed by Kellerwessel because said material mitigates clogging and prevents liquids and solids particles from penetrating the openings.
Regarding claim 8, Utsunomiya and Kellerwessel teach the conduit according to claim 3, further comprising an over-water nozzle (Utsunomiya, nozzles 42) jetting pressure water to an upper surface of the scum layer to advance a flow so that the scum layer goes toward a scum pit, or an underwater nozzle jetting pressure water in water to advance a flow so that the scum layer goes toward the scum pit, or provided with both the nozzles (Utsunomiya, see Fig. 4).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048).
Regarding claim 5, Utsunomiya teaches a conduit (sedimentation basin 1) distributing and supplying raw water to a sedimentation basin provided with a sewage treatment plant, comprising:
a conduit body (corresponds to body or housing of sedimentation basin 1) into which the raw water flows (indicated by arrow a in see Fig. 1), and
a compressed air jetting mechanism (air ejecting means 20) which is provided along a longitudinal direction of the conduit body (see Fig. 1) that is inside a side wall formed along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body (see Fig. 1), and below a scum layer occurred in the conduit body (see Fig. 1), wherein the compressed air jetting mechanism is capable of jetting out compressed air from a plurality of points in the longitudinal direction into water (see Fig. 5(b) and 6(b)),
wherein in the compressed air jetting mechanism is provided with a pipe (21) in which a circumference wall is formed of a rigid material (pipe made of steel)…and a compressed air supply system capable of supplying compressed air having higher pressure than pressure in water where the pipe is provided into pipe (air supplied is sufficient to eject air from the rod below the water surface) and wherein the pipe is supported along the longitudinal direction on the side wall of the conduit body (Fig. 1 shows that pipe 22 is supported on the side of the sedimentation basin 1 and extends along the longitudinal direction of the sedimentation basin 1).
Utsunomiya further discloses at least one slit (longitudinal slits 22b); however, Utsunomiya does not teach that said slit penetrates the circumference wall of the pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the slits of Utsunomiya by rearranging said slits on the circumference wall of the pipe because it achieves a predictable result, obviously resulting in uniformly discharging air from the air source with a reasonable expectation of success. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 5, wherein a plurality of the holes are provided at a predetermined intervals with each other in a longitudinal direction of the pipe (Fig. 6(b)).
Regarding claim 7, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 6, wherein a discharge port member (rod-shaped body 22a) is provided at the hole (hole 26), and the discharge port member is formed in a cup shape and provided so that an opening part faces downward and the hole and an inner space of the discharge port member are communicated with each other (see Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the closest prior art references of record for claim 10 is Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048), Kellerwessel (DE 2709711) and Abe (JPH 11-290847); and
the closest prior art references of record for claim 11 is Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048) and Abe (JPH 11-290847).
Regarding claim 10, Utsunomiya and Kellerwessel teach the conduit according to claim 3.
The combination does not teach sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side on an outside of the side wall of the longitudinal direction of the conduit body, and inflow ports communicating the conduit body and the sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side of the longitudinal direction of the side wall, wherein the pipe is located above the inflow ports along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body.
In a related field of endeavor, Abe teaches a scum crushing apparatus (see ABS) comprising sedimentation tanks (settling tanks 2a-2c) are disposed side by side on an outside of the side wall of the longitudinal direction of the conduit body (water conduit 1), and inflow ports (inflow doors 3a-3c) communicating the conduit body (see Fig. 1) and the sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side of the longitudinal direction of the side wall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 5.
Utsunomiya does not teach sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side on an outside of the side wall of the longitudinal direction of the conduit body, and inflow ports communicating the conduit body and the sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side of the longitudinal direction of the side wall, wherein the pipe is located above the inflow ports along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body.
In a related field of endeavor, Abe teaches a scum crushing apparatus (see ABS) comprising sedimentation tanks (settling tanks 2a-2c) are disposed side by side on an outside of the side wall of the longitudinal direction of the conduit body (water conduit 1), and inflow ports (inflow doors 3a-3c) communicating the conduit body (see Fig. 1) and the sedimentation tanks are disposed side by side of the longitudinal direction of the side wall (see Fig. 1).
However, the combination of references do not teach nor fairly suggest “wherein the pipe is located above the inflow ports along the longitudinal direction of the conduit body” as required by claims 10-11.
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights