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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 8/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims would not represent an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a 371 and is subject to the Unity of Invention standard which, as discussed in the requirement dated 3/31/2025, considers whether the common subject matter between the groups represents a special technical feature which makes a contribution over the prior art. As set forth in the aforementioned requirement, the claims do no currently have Unity and so are subject to restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-21 are 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the end of the water outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (specifically the term water outlet) in the claim. From the context of the disclosure it appears that the term is intended to refer to the outlet side of the hole in the disc itself, but the terminology in the claim is confusing as, previously, the term outlet is only generally employed to refer to the conduits associated with the broader tubular body. Defining “water outlet” to refer to the hole itself on a per-disc basis, or otherwise clarifying the language to make clear that the countersink is a feature of the hole geometry on the discs, is suggested.
Claims 4-21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 3 and incorporate the same indefiniteness.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katzarov (EP 3085670 A1).
Katzarov teaches a device for water treatment include a device defining a duct for flow (outer tubular body with extension along a longitudinal axis, inlet for water flow, outlet for water flow, being aligned at opposite ends and in fluid communication along the axis), and a bladed assembly contain in the body comprising a plurality of disc blades aligned along the flow direction and rotated relative to one another by a predefined pitch angle [Abs] to create a tortuous path for water flow in the duct (central body comprising a plurality of discs packed and centered longitudinally along said axis, each of which has one or more holes arranged in a circular crown, each rotated by a predetermined angle with respect to the preceding disc). Examiner notes that the instant specification makes clear that the term “hole” may apply to any geometric shape that accomplishes the desired flow behavior [pg. 5, lines 32-33] and as such, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term may be read on the shapes cut from Katzarov’s taught discs [Fig. 3]. The device of Katzarov therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Katzarov and Kunzle (EP 0295463 A2).
Katzarov teaches as above but is silent to an arrangement in which each hole is cylindrical in shape i.e. having a circular cross section.
However, Kunzle teaches a system for water treatment with disks therein to direct flow in a helical manner [Abs] using holes and associated wing deflectors, and teaches that, in embodiments [Figs. 8 and 9, pg. 3, second-to-last paragraph] the holes and associated wing deflectors may have arcuate boundaries i.e. nearly circular cross sections because simpler and cheaper to produce. Kunzle does not specify that the discs are rotated relative to one another in any particular manner.
See MPEP 2144.04 IV.B; changes in shape are obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katzarov’s taught discs to provide opening sections which are circular because, as in Kunzle, providing punchouts with arcuate boundaries is cheaper than alternative shapes, such that a circle would have been an obvious example thereof (and, given that the disc has a thickness, the resulting hole would be substantially a cylinder). Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to modify the discs taught by Kunzle which teach substantially cylindrical holes to include a rotational offset in order to provide a tortuous path for the water flow (discussed more fully above as taught by Katzarov) in order to increase water movement and treatment effectiveness. In either combination, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-21 are rejected under 112(b) as discussed above, but are free from the art as currently understood.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is represented by Katzarov and Kunzle as discussed above, which teach flow-through devices with discs containing openings for directing flow in a desired manner. They are silent to the use of a countersink at the outlet end of the disk. The prior art alone or in combination would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt this structure, as within the art countersinks are only used for apertures which are designed to receive bolts or the like, and are not used for controlling flow behavior, pressure and the like as in the instant application. As such, the invention of claims 3-21 are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777