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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending
Claims 3-5, 7, 9 and 12-15 are currently amended
Claims 1-16 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 04/02/2023 and 11/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “between the belts,” and instead should state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts,” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 5 and 7 each state “between the pair of belts,” and instead should each state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts,” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “of claim 1 in which” and instead should include a comma in between to further recite “of claim 1, in which” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “between the pair of belts,” and instead should state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts,” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “is in the form of a” and instead should state “is in a form of a” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “A continuous belt screen assembly” and instead should state “The continuous belt screen assembly” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “between the belts, the kit” and instead should state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts, the mounting kit” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 9 states “between the pair of belts,” and instead should state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts,” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “of claim 10 in which” and instead should include a comma in between to further recite “of claim 10, in which” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “between the pair of belts,” and instead should state “between the pair of spaced, opposed endless belts,” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “is in the form of a” and instead should state “is in a form of a” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the second set of links being configured to be interposed between” on line 8 of claim 1, “the links of the first set of links are configured to alternate” on lines 1-2 of claim 2, “the first set of links is configured to be disposed” on lines 1-2 of claim 3, “the second set of links is configured to be disposed” on lines 2-3 of claim 3, “the second set of links being configured to” on line 9 of claim 10, “the links of the first set of links are configured to alternate” on lines 1-2 of claim 11, “the first set of links is configured to be disposed” on lines 1-2 of claim 12, and “the second set of links is configured to be disposed” on lines 2-3 of claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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 5-6 and 14 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 5 recites the limitation "in which each end of each link of the first and second sets of links comprises a mounting formation via which that end” on lines 2-3. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is referring to by recite ‘via which that end’? Claim 6 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 5.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “in which each end of each link of the first and second sets of links comprises a mounting formation via which that end” on lines 2-3. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is referring to by recite ‘via which that end’?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson et al. (U.S. 2016/0114268 A1) (hereinafter “Adam”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Adam teaches a mounting system for mounting a screen panel in a continuous belt screen assembly used for removal of solid waste from fluid (see FIGS. 1, 3 and 5, a system 100 includes a support structure comprising a continuous belt screen assembly 130) (see FIGS. 6-7 and 10, screen panels 210) (see paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 14-15, 50-52, 62, 71-73 and 85), the continuous belt screen assembly comprising a pair of spaced, opposed endless belts and a plurality of screen panels arranged between the belts (see paragraphs 5, 7, 10, 14-15, 50, 71-73 and 79), the mounting system comprising:
a first set of links mountable in spaced, parallel relationship between the pair of belts (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), each link of the first set of links defining a first recessed portion (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130); and
a second set of links mountable in spaced, parallel relationship between the pair of belts (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), the second set of links being aligned with the first set of links (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), each link of the second set of links defining a second recessed portion (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130), the second recessed portions facing in a direction opposite to that of the first recessed portions, in use, so that the first and second recessed portions, together, define a channel in which the screen panel is receivable (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Although Adams teaches a continuous belt screen assembly including multiple screen panels, links, shafts and belts, one may broadly interpret that Adams does not explicitly teach the second set of links being configured to be interposed between, and aligned with, the first set of links, as recited in independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the first set of links and the second set of links to be interposed and further aligned with in a spaced, parallel relationship for optimization purposes and to further allow a smooth rotation of the continuous belt screen assembly without any defaults (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 2:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 1, in which the links of the first set of links are configured to alternate with the links of the second set of links along a length of the screen panel (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 3:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 1, in which the first set of links is configured to be disposed on one side of the screen panel, and in which the second set of links is configured to be disposed on an opposed side of the screen panel (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 4:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 1, in which each of the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions is substantially U-shaped to bound at least one side and opposed longitudinal edges of the screen panel (see paragraphs 56 and 62 further describing U-shaped) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 5:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 1, in which the continuous belt screen assembly comprises shafts extending between the pair of belts, and in which each end of each link of the first and second sets of links comprises a mounting formation via which that end of the link is mountable to one of the shafts (see FIGS. 5 and 10, shafts 168 and 194) (see paragraphs 64 and 71-73).
Regarding Claim 6:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 5, in which an axial plane of the screen panel intersects a pair of the shafts, in use (see FIGS. 5 and 10, shafts 168 and 194) (see paragraphs 64 and 71-73).
Regarding Claim 7:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 1, in which at least one link of the first and second sets of links comprises a lifter to assist with removing the solid waste from the fluid (see FIGS. 6-7, a plurality of lifters 180) (see paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 8:
Adam teaches the mounting system of claim 7, in which the lifter is in a form of a hook (see FIGS. 6-7, a plurality of lifters 180) (see paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 9:
Adam teaches the continuous belt screen assembly comprising the mounting system as claimed in claim 1 (see FIGS. 1, 3 and 5, a system 100 includes a support structure comprising a continuous belt screen assembly 130) (see FIGS. 6-7 and 10, screen panels 210) (see paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 14-15, 50-52, 62, 71-73 and 85).
Regarding Claim 10:
Adam teaches a mounting kit for mounting a screen panel in a continuous belt screen assembly used for removal of solid waste from fluid (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘a mounting kit’ to include a mounting system) (see FIGS. 1, 3 and 5, a system 100 includes a support structure comprising a continuous belt screen assembly 130) (see FIGS. 6-7 and 10, screen panels 210) (see paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 14-15, 50-52, 62, 71-73 and 85), the continuous belt screen assembly comprising a pair of spaced, opposed endless belts and a plurality of screen panels arranged between the belts (see paragraphs 5, 7, 10, 14-15, 50, 71-73 and 79), the mounting kit comprising:
a first set of links (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), each link of the first set of links defining a first recessed portion (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130); and
a second set of links (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), each link of the second set of links defining a second recessed portion (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130),
in which the first and second sets of links are mountable in spaced, parallel relationship between the pair of belts (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85), the second set of links being aligned with the first set of links such that the second recessed portions face in a direction opposite to that of the first recessed portions for defining a channel in which the screen panel is receivable (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71-73, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Although Adams teaches a continuous belt screen assembly including multiple screen panels, links, shafts and belts, one may broadly interpret that Adams does not explicitly teach the second set of links being configured to be interposed between, and aligned with, the first set of links, as recited in independent claim 10. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the first set of links and the second set of links to be interposed and further aligned with in a spaced, parallel relationship for optimization purposes and to further allow a smooth rotation of the continuous belt screen assembly without any defaults (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 11:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 10, in which the links of the first set of links are configured to alternate with the links of the second set of links along a length of the screen panel (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 12:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 10, in which the first set of links is configured to be disposed on one side of the screen panel, and in which the second set of links is configured to be disposed on an opposed side of the screen panel (see FIGS. 9-10, links 172 and/or links 200) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 13:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 10, in which each of the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions is substantially U-shaped to bound at least one side and opposed longitudinal edges of the screen panel (see paragraphs 56 and 62 further describing U-shaped) (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 50-52, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 85) (see paragraphs 72-73 further describing a plurality of belt links 200 is installed along the length of a pivot shaft 194 to ensure proper spacing of adjacent drive links 172 and that each pivot shaft 194 appropriately spaces two drive links 200 for proper alignment and to allow two adjacent drive links 172 to be in flush with one another, thus enabling smooth rotation of the belt screen assembly 130).
Regarding Claim 14:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 10, in which the continuous belt screen assembly comprises shafts extending between the pair of belts, and in which each end of each link of the first and second sets of links comprises a mounting formation via which that end of the link is mountable to one of the shafts (see FIGS. 5 and 10, shafts 168 and 194) (see paragraphs 64 and 71-73).
Regarding Claim 15:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 10, in which at least one link of the first and second sets of links comprises a lifter to assist with removing the solid waste from the fluid (see FIGS. 6-7, a plurality of lifters 180) (see paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 16:
Adam teaches the mounting kit of claim 15, in which the lifter is in a form of a hook (see FIGS. 6-7, a plurality of lifters 180) (see paragraph 68).
Other Reference Considered
Conroy (U.S. 2007/0215539 A1) (hereinafter “Conroy”) teaches a filter grid assembly including screen panels and links.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773