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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “which filtering device” in line 8 of the claim should read “which the filtering device”.
In Claim 1, “each filter container” in line 15 of the claim should read “each of the several filter containers”.
In Claim 3, “which distribution device” in line 3 of the claim should read “which the distribution device”.
In Claim 3, “which pre-clarified sewage” in line 3 of the claim should read “which the pre-clarified sewage”.
In Claim 4, “each filter container” in line 2 of the claim should read “each of the several filter containers”.
In Claim 9, “pre-clarified sewage” in line 3 of the claim should read “the pre-clarified sewage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the filtered sewage" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the associated filter container" in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are references to “several filter containers” and “each filter container”, neither of which are exactly “the associated filter container” and so it is unclear if a new filter container is being referenced or one of the previous instances.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the filter container" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are references to several filter containers, each filter container, and the associated filter container, none of which are exactly “the filter container” and so it is unclear if a new filter container is being referenced or one of the previous instances.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its filters" in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear what “its” is references and what filters are being referenced as there are two instances of “several filters” and one instance of “at least one filter” that have been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the filters" in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear what filters are being referenced as there are two instances of “several filters” and one instance of “at least one filter” that have been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the distribution device" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the filter container" in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear what filter container is being referenced as there are one instance of “several filter containers”, one instance of “each filter container”, and one instance of “the associated filter container” that have been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "its lid" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “its lid” is references as there is a previous instance of “a lid of the second sewage tank”, but the sentence appears to be introducing a new lid for the first sewage tank, which has yet to be introduced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the filter container" in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear what filter container is being referenced as there are one instance of “several filter containers”, one instance of “each filter container”, and one instance of “the associated filter container” that have been introduced in claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doumen et al (European Patent Application No. EP 3636405 A1) hereinafter Doumen in view of Lin (Chinese Patent No. CN 209494789 U) hereinafter Lin in view of Lubrecht et al (US Patent Application No. 20200031694 A1) hereinafter Lubrecht.
Regarding Claim 1, Doumen teaches a rotomoulded tank for treating waste water (i.e., a small sewage treatment plant comprising; Abstract) with an outer shell (Fig. 4, #1) with a first compartment (i.e., a first sewage tank; Fig. 4, #9) with an inlet for waste water (i.e., with an inlet for sewage; Fig. 4, #3; Paragraph 0040) which is a decanter compartment (i.e., in which a preliminary clarification takes place as a result of the sinking of solid particles to the bottom of the first sewage tank) and a second compartment (i.e., a second sewage tank; Fig. 4, #10) which has a filter medium (i.e., a filtering device in the second sewage tank; Fig. 4, #51) and a pipe (Fig. 4, #53) which guides waste water from the first compartment to the top of a second compartment (i.e., which is connected to the first sewage tank via an overflow through which pre-clarified sewage is feedable to the second sewage tank; to which the pre-clarified sewage is fed from above for further clarification; Fig. 4, #10) where a sump pump (Fig. 4, #63) pumps the treated waste water from the bottom of the second compartment (i.e., and an outlet which is arranged below the filtering device and via which the filtered sewage is dischargeable; Paragraphs 0059-0062) and the compartments have two access openings (Fig. 4, #5 and 6) and two lids (i.e., in a lid of the second sewage tank a closable opening is provided via which at least one filter is removable; Fig. 4, #7 and 8; Paragraph 0040).
Doumen does not teach which the filtering device comprises several filters, characterized in that the filtering device comprises a rotary plate which is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation and stores several filter containers, and at least one filter is removable when the associated filter container is opposite the tank opening after a corresponding rotation of the rotary plate.
However, Lin teaches a filter frame (Fig. 1, #2) that holds filter elements (i.e., which the filtering device comprises several filters; Fig. 1, #4) which rotates by rotating the handle, and is seen to be rotating about a vertical axis (i.e., characterized in that the filtering device comprises a rotary plate which is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation and stores several filter containers; Fig. 1, #9), where the rotation allows for the filters to be aligned with the inlet (Fig. 1, #18) for the easy removal and replacement of the filter element during filtration (i.e., and at least one filter is removable when the associated filter container is opposite the tank opening after a corresponding rotation of the rotary plate; Paragraph 0031, Machine Translation).
Lin is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an easy to install filter element (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotomoulded tank for treating waste water as taught by Doumen with the filter frame and elements as taught by Lin because the filter frame and elements would make removal and replacement of the filter elements easier.
Doumen in view of Lin does not teach each of the several filter containers comprising several filters arranged one above the other.
However, Lubrecht teaches filter or media cartridges that can be connected with one or more media cartridges (Abstract) in which a media cartridge (Fig. 3, #300) contains multiple layers of filter media (Fig. 3, #330; Paragraph 0029) with the benefit of reducing cost of the filters (Paragraph 0032).
Lubrecht is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to filtration media that supports biological organisms to assist in treating contaminated fluids (Paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotomoulded tank for treating waste water made obvious by Doumen in view of Lin with the filter cartridges as taught by Lubrecht because the filter cartridges would reduce the costs of filtering.
Regarding Claim 2, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Lubrecht further teaches that individual cartridges can be removed or a series of cartridges can be removed at the same time (i.e., characterized in that the filter container is removable together with its filters; Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 3, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen further teaches a container (Fig. 4, #54) with four arms (i.e., characterized in that a distribution device is present; Fig. 4, #55) arranged to uniformly distribute waste water over the filter medium (i.e., above the filtering device) which is fed from the pipe from the first compartment (i.e., which the distribution device is connected to the overflow and via which the pre-clarified sewage is feedable to at least one filter container; Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 4, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Lin further teaches in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 that the filter elements (Fig. 1 and 2, #4) are circular in cross section, cylindrical, and designed to filter vertically (i.e., characterized in that each of the several filter containers are configured as a cylinder with a vertical longitudinal axis, which receives the filters with circular cross-section).
Regarding Claim 5, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Lubrecht further teaches that individual cartridges can be removed or a series of cartridges can be removed at the same time (i.e., in which several filters of a filter container are combined to one filter group, the filter group being removable via the tank opening; Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 6, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen further teaches the compartments have two access openings (Fig. 4, #5 and 6) and two lids (i.e., characterized in that the first sewage tank is formed as a closed tank; Fig. 4, #7 and 8; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 7, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen further teaches a pipe (Fig. 4, #53) which guides waste water from the first compartment to the top of a second compartment (i.e., characterized in that the first sewage tank is rigidly connected to the second sewage tank; Fig. 4, #10; Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 8, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht do not teach that the small sewage treatment plant is characterized in that the first sewage tank and the second sewage tank together comprise a holding volume of 10 to 40 m3. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 9, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen further teaches a container (Fig. 4, #54) with four arms (i.e., characterized in that the distribution device; Fig. 4, #55) arranged to uniformly distribute waste water over the filter medium where the arms are clearly designated with valves on the ends, see marked up Fig. 4 below (i.e., comprises at least one throttle element with which the supply of pre-clarified sewage to the filter container can be throttled), which is fed from the pipe from the first compartment (Paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Doumen in view of Lin in view of Lubrecht makes obvious the small sewage treatment plant of claim 1. Doumen further teaches the compartments have two access openings (Fig. 4, #5 and 6) and two lids (i.e., characterized in that the first sewage tank comprises in its lid a closable opening into which the filter container can be inserted for cleaning; Fig. 4, #7 and 8; Paragraph 0040).
Furthermore, the limitation “a closable opening into which the filter container can be inserted for cleaning” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772