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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-9 are pending:
Claims 3-8 are rejected.
Claims 1-2 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-2 and 9 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 12/01/2025. is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
This election is made with traverse as there is no undue burden on the part of the Examiner. Consideration and allowance of all pending claims are respectfully requested. It is believed that extensions of time are not required, beyond those that may otherwise be provided for in accompanying documents.
This is not found persuasive because arguments are not commensurate in scope with the restriction requirement. The groups are restricted based on the unity of invention analysis therefore the examiner does not need to show that a serious search burden exists. The groups lack unity because the feature of the compressed air jetting mechanism does not make a contribution of the prior art in view of Kellerwessel (DE 2709711).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. App #JP2020-143546 and JP2020-152897, filed on 08/27/2020 and 09/11/2020.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “(2) a compressed air supply system connected to the pipe to supply compressed air having higher pressure than pressure in water where the pipe is provided into the pipe”; consider rephrasing to – (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 – for clarity and consistency other claim language.
Claim 8 recites “provided with any one of an over-water nozzle jetting pressure”; consider rephrasing to – further comprising an over-water nozzle jetting pressure – for clarity and consistency other claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048).
Regarding claim 3, Utsunomiya teaches the 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 3, further comprising an over-water nozzle (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 (see Fig. 4).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048) in view of Kellerwessel (DE 2709711).
Regarding claim 4, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 3, 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).
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 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 compressed air jetting mechanism (air piping inside of tank 1 shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising: a pipe (10) wherein a circumference wall is formed of an elastic material, having at least one slit (11) penetrating the circumference wall, and disposed in water, and a compressed air supply system (13) connected to the pipe to supply compressed air having higher pressure than pressure in water where the pipe is provided into the pipe, 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 Google Patents for translation).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya (JP 2011088048).
Regarding claim 5, Utsunomiya teaches the conduit according to claim 3, 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).
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).
Conclusion
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