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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. The amendments to claims 1 and 11 resolve the previously identified antecedent basis deficiency concerning “the second opening”. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn. The amendments to claims 8 and 13 resolve the previously identified informalities, and those objections are withdrawn. However, claim 13 retains the phrase “polymer is in the injection chamber.” This separate grammatical informality is addressed in the claim objection set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 13, 2026, with respect to The previous 103 rejections relying on Moos and the associated supporting references have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
New rejections under U.S.C. §103 are set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: the word "is" still remains. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "mixing subsystem for mixing"; "polymer injection subsystem for adding"; "subsystem" may act as a generic placeholder when paired with a function in claims 2, 4 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US4816167).
Regarding claim 1, ‘517 discloses an apparatus for dewatering sludge comprising: a tank having an internal space divided by a dividing wall into an intake chamber and an extract chamber (‘517 ¶[0028], Fig. 1 tank 102, dividing wall 104, intake chamber 106 and extract chamber 108); an intake pipe connected to the intake chamber and comprising an intake valve for selectively opening and closing the intake pipe (‘517 ¶[0028] and Fig. 1 discharge pipe 118 and valve 119); a discharge pipe connected to the extract chamber and comprising a discharge valve for selectively opening and closing the discharge pipe (‘517 ¶[0028], Fig. 1 “discharge pipe 118” and “valve 119”); a transfer pipe providing fluid communication between a bottom portion of the intake chamber and a top portion of the extract chamber (‘517 ¶[0029], Fig. 1 “a first opening 122 near the bottom of the intake chamber 106 and a second opening 124 near the top of the extract chamber 108”); a pump for selectively creating positive and negative pressure within the intake chamber (‘517 ¶[0028], [0034-0035], Fig. 1 “pump 110”); and a screen within the extract chamber positioned between a second opening of the transfer pipe and the discharge pipe (‘517 ¶[0030], Fig. 1 “screen 130” between opening 124 and discharge pipe 118).
‘517 does not expressly disclose the transfer pipe extending upwardly out of the tank from the intake chamber and downwardly into the tank into the extract chamber and comprising a transfer valve external to the tank for selectively opening and closing the transfer pipe. Rather, its transfer pipe 120 passes through an opening in dividing wall 104 between the chambers, without an external transfer valve (‘517 ¶[0029], Fig. 1).
Vanderslice teaches a single tank 28 divided by wall 44 into rear compartment 46 and forward compartment 48, with a crossover pipe 70 conveying liquid from near the floor of the rear compartment to the forward compartment. Its first leg 72 extends from near the rear-compartment floor; intermediate portion 76 joins that leg to second leg 74, which extends into the forward compartment; and intermediate portion 76 includes shutoff valve 77 (Vanderslice col. 3, lines 9-12 and 31-42; Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows the crossover pipe rising out of the tank from rear compartment 46, passing through valve 77 outside the tank, and descending back into the tank into forward compartment 48. Vanderslice closes valve 77 during collection and opens it to permit controlled transfer between the compartments (Vanderslice col. 4 lines 62-65; col. 5 lines 5-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to route ‘517’s transfer pipe between the chambers of its divided tank using Vanderslice’s external, valved crossover arrangement, so that transfer from the intake chamber to the extract chamber could be selectively prevented during sludge collection and permitted during pressure-driven transfer. Vanderslice demonstrates this arrangement in a divided tank that can also be tilted for dumping (Vanderslice col. 2 lines 55-65; col. 5 lines 5-17; Figs. 2 and 8-10). The modification would retain ‘517’s lower intake-side opening, upper extract-side opening, and downstream screen while providing the predictable flow control taught by Vanderslice.
Regarding claim 4, ‘517 in view of Vanderslice discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1 comprising a polymer injection subsystem for adding polymer to the intake chamber (‘517 ¶[0034] discloses injecting polymer into intake chamber 106 through a separate polymer injection valve to cause solids in the sludge to coagulate into clumps).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US4816167) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Browne (US-7387428-B1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘517 in view of Vanderslice discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1 .
The combination of ‘517 and Vanderslice does not expressly disclose comprising a mixing subsystem for mixing contents of the intake chamber.
Browne teaches a subsystem for mixing the contents of a slurry tank comprising an air compressor 15, gas conduit 16, and gas outlets 17. Air introduced through the outlets produces bubbles that move the slurry contents and promote a uniform mixture (Browne col. 6 line 50-col. 7 line 23; Figs. 1, 2 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the intake chamber of the ‘517-Vanderslice apparatus with Browne’s mixing subsystem to maintain a more uniform mixture of sludge and liquid before transfer to the extract chamber, as taught by Browne.
Regarding claim 3, ‘517 in view of Vanderslice and further in view of Browne discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the mixing subsystem comprises a source of compressed gas (Browne’s “compressor 15”) connected to one or more accumulator plates positioned in a bottom portion of the intake chamber (Browne col. 6 conduit 16 directs compressed air to outlets 17 beneath the accumulator plates 14, which are positioned near the bottom of Browne’s tank). Browne describes the gas delivery path as connected to the plates through outlet conduit 26 (Browne Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 10-11; col. 6-7).
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US4816167) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Crumby (US4741368).
Regarding claim 5, ‘517 in view of Vanderslice discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 4.
‘517 in view of Vanderslice does not expressly disclose wherein the polymer injection subsystem comprises a holding tank connected to an injection chamber through a fill valve, wherein the injection chamber is connected to the intake chamber though a polymer injection valve.
Crumby teaches a holding tank (Crumby chemical supply “drum 12”) connected to an injection chamber through a fill valve (Crumby col. 3 line 20 and control valve 28 connect drum 12 to measuring chamber 14). Crumby further teaches the injection chamber connected through an outlet valve for dispensing its contents (Crumby col. 3 and Fig. 1 control valve 26 and transfer line 24 carry a measured quantity of chemical from chamber 14 to the receiving apparatus). In the proposed combination, Crumby’s outlet valve and line would deliver polymer to ‘517’s intake chamber, serving as the claimed polymer injection valve and connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘517’s polymer injection subsystem with Crumby’s valves supply drum and measuring chamber, with the chamber outlet connected to ‘517’s intake chamber, because ‘517 expressly calls for polymer to be injected to coagulate the sludge solids, while Crumby teaches a way to transfer a measured amount of liquid chemical from a supply container to receiving equipment in a closed system. The modification would permit the operator to measure the polymer before introducing it into the intake chamber and transfer it without direct connect with the chemical as taught by Crumby.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the injection chamber comprises a sight glass configured to allow visual inspection of polymer in the injection chamber (Crumby’s measuring chamber 14 has a vertically mounted sight glass 32 for determining the level of liquid chemical in the chamber (col. 3); in the combination, the liquid chemical is the polymer supplied to ‘517’s intake chamber).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the injection chamber comprises an injection chamber vent with an injection chamber vent valve for allowing air into the injection chamber as polymer is withdrawn from the injection chamber into the intake tank (Crumby col. 3, 5 and Fig. 1 “vent valve 30” is opened to restore atmospheric pressure before the measured chemical is transferred through the chamber outlet; in the combination, the outlet delivers the polymer to ‘517’s intake chamber).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US4816167) and Crumby (US4741368) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Riley (US2183125).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 5.
The combination of ‘517, Vanderslice and Crumby does not expressly disclose wherein the holding tank comprises a vent for allowing air into the holding tank as polymer is withdrawn from the holding tank into the injection chamber.
Riley teaches a holding tank comprising a vent for allowing air into the tank as its contents are withdrawn into a downstream chamber: supply tank 5 has vent opening 8 in its closure 7, and its contents are drawn by vacuum through a suction tubes into sight-feed chamber 18 (Riley co. 1-2 Fig. 1). In the proposed combination, Crumby’s supply drum holds the polymer and its measuring chamber serves as the claimed injection chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Crumby’s supply drum with Riley’s vent opening to admit replacement air as liquid polymer is drawn into the measuring chamber, thereby avoiding a pressure drop in the drum that would impede withdrawal. Riley shows that vent arrangement in a chemical supply tank feeding a downstream chamber by suction.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice and Crumby in further view of Riley discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the holding tank comprises a sight tube configured to allow visual inspection of a level of polymer remaining in the holding tank (Riley col. 1 Fig. 1 tank 5 has a transparent sight tube assembly 9 connected to the tank by upper and lower fittings to permit observation of the level of chemical remaining therein; in the combination, Crumby’s supply drum holds the polymer).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US4816167) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gustafson (US4625753).
Regarding claim 10, ‘517 in view of Vanderslice discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above, comprising a pressure relief valve (‘517 ¶[0030]).
The combination of ‘517 and Vanderslice does not expressly disclose the pressure relief valve in an upper portion of the extract chamber, wherein the pressure relief valve comprises a ball float shut off for preventing liquid from being discharged though the pressure relief valve.
Gustafson concerns pressure relief while liquid is introduced into a vessel. It teaches a relief path at the top of inner vessel 14, with automatic pressure relief valve 30 extending into the vapor space. Valve 30 contains buoyant float ball 42, which rises against seat 44 as the liquid level increases and shuts the relief path to prevent liquid from escaping (Gustafson col. 3-4, Figs. 1-2). Gustafson also places a conventional pressure relief valve 33 in series in that path; valve 30 contains the float ball, while valve 33 provides the pressure set point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place Gustafson’s float-protected pressure relief arrangement in an upper portion of ‘517’s extract chamber, to relieve pressure as ‘517 forces sludge into that chamber while preventing liquid from escaping through the relief path if the liquid level rises to it. ‘517 already contemplates a tank relief valve and forces material into the extract chamber under positive pressure; Gustafson teaches positioning its relief inlet in the vessel’s upper vapor space and closing it with a float ball when liquid reaches the inlet.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US-4816167-A), Browne (US7387428) and Gustafson (US4625753).
Regarding claim 11, ‘517 discloses an apparatus for dewatering sludge comprising: a tank having an internal space divided by a dividing wall into an intake chamber and an extract chamber (‘517 ¶[0028] and Fig. 1-2); an intake pipe connected to the intake chamber and comprising an intake valve for selectively opening and closing the intake pipe (‘517 ¶[0028] and Fig. 1-2); a discharge pipe connected to the extract chamber and comprising a discharge valve for selectively opening and closing the discharge pipe (‘517 ¶[0028] and Fig. 1-2); a transfer pipe providing fluid communication between a bottom portion of the intake chamber and a top portion of the extract chamber (‘517 ¶[0029] and Fig. 1-2); a pump for selectively creating positive and negative pressure within the intake chamber (‘517 ¶[0028] and Fig. 1-2); a screen within the extract chamber positioned between a second opening of the transfer pipe and the discharge pipe (‘517 ¶[0030] and Fig. 1-2); a polymer injection subsystem for adding polymer to the intake chamber (‘517 ¶[0034] and Fig. 1-2); and a relief valve on the tank (‘517 ¶[0030] and Fig. 1-2).
‘517 does not expressly disclose the transfer pipe extending upwardly out of the tank from the intake chamber and downwardly into the tank into the extract chamber with a transfer valve external to the tank; a mixing subsystem for mixing contents of the intake chamber; or a pressure relief valve in an upper portion of the extract chamber configured to allow air and other gasses to escape the extract chamber when a pressure in the extract chamber exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein the pressure relief valve comprises a ball float shut off for preventing liquid from being discharged therethrough.
Vanderslice concerns a vehicle-mounted apparatus for dewatering sewer-trap contents. Its crossover pipe 70 has a first leg 72 in a rear compartment, a second leg 74 in a forward compartment, and an intermediate portion 76 passing outside the tank over the dividing region, with shutoff valve 77 on that intermediate portion (Vanderslice col. 3-4, Fig. 2). Vanderslice thus teaches the claimed external transfer-pipe routing and external transfer valve for controlling flow between compartments.
Browne concerns mixing a liquid and solids slurry in a tank. Its mixing system uses compressor 15, conduit 16, and gas outlets 17 to introduce air beneath accumulator plates 14, producing rising bubbles that move the tank contents and promote a uniform mixture (Browne col. 6-7, Figs. 1, 2 and 7). Browne thus teaches a mixing subsystem for mixing contents of the intake chamber.
Gustafson concerns relieving pressure as liquid enters a vessel while preventing liquid from escaping through the relief path. Its upper relief path includes a conventional pressure relief valve 33 having a pressure set point and, in series, an automatic pressure relief valve 30 containing float ball 42. Gas escapes when the set point is exceeded; rising liquid causes ball 42 to seat and close the relief path (Gustafson col. 3-4 Figs. 1-2). Gustafson thus teaches a pressure relief arrangement in an upper portion of a liquid-receiving chamber that vents gas above a predetermined pressure and includes a ball float shutoff to prevent liquid discharge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘517’s transfer pipe with Vanderslice’s externally accessible routing and shutoff valve to control transfer between the tank compartments; to provide ‘517’s intake chamber with Browne’s gas-driven mixing system to reduce settling and maintain a more uniform sludge mixture before transfer; and to place Gustafson’s float-protected relief arrangement in an upper portion of ‘517’s extract chamber to vent pressure as material is forced into that chamber while preventing liquid from escaping through the relief path. Each reference teaches the stated function in a tank handling liquid-containing material, and ‘517 itself contemplates both pressurized transfer into the extract chamber and a tank relief valve (‘517 ¶[0030], [0035]).
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US-4816167-A), Browne (US7387428) and Gustafson (US4625753) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Crumby (US4741368).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne and Gustafson discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 11.
The combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne and Gustafson does not expressly disclose wherein the polymer injection subsystem comprises a holding tank connected to an injection chamber through a fill valve, wherein the injection chamber is connected to the intake chamber though a polymer injection valve.
Crumby concerns transferring liquid chemical from a supply container through a measuring chamber to receiving equipment. Its supply drum 12 (holding tank) is connected by line 20 and control valve 28 (fill valve) to measuring chamber 14 (injection chamber). Control valve 26 and transfer line 24 provide the chamber’s valves outlet. Crumby draws chemical into chamber 14, closes valves 28, and then transfers a measured amount through the outlet (Crumby col. 3, 5 and Fig. 1). Connecting that outlet to ‘517’s intake chamber supplies the claimed chamber-to-intake connection through a polymer injection valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Crumby’s supply drum, fill valve, and measuring chamber to supply liquid polymer through ‘517’s polymer injection valve into the intake chamber. ‘517 expressly calls for polymer injection to coagulate sludge solids, while Crumby teaches measuring liquid chemical before transferring it from a supply container through a valved outlet. The arrangement would permit an operator to select a measured quantity of polymer for injection while keeping the transfer path closed to direct handling of the chemical.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the injection chamber comprises an injection chamber vent with an injection chamber vent valve for allowing air into the injection chamber as polymer is withdrawn from the injection chamber into the intake tank (Crumby col. 3, 5 and Fig. 1 “vent valve 30” is opened to restore atmospheric pressure before the measured chemical is transferred through the chamber outlet; in the combination, the outlet delivers the polymer to ‘517’s intake chamber).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the mixing subsystem comprises one or more accumulator plates positioned in a bottom portion of the intake chamber (Browne col. 6-7 and Figs 1, 2 and 5-7 accumulator plates 14 are positioned near the bottom of its slurry tank) connected to receive compressed gas (Browne col. 6-7 compressor 15 supplies compressed air through conduit 16 and outlets 17 beneath the plates) and configured to release bubbles of gas upwardly through the intake chamber (Browne col. 7-8, Figs. 10-11 bubbles collect beneath the plates, emerge from under them, and rise through the slurry).
Claims 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '517 (WO-2018232517-A1) in view of Vanderslice (US-4816167-A), Browne (US7387428), Gustafson (US4625753) and Crumby (US4741368) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Riley (US2183125).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson and Crumby discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the injection chamber comprises a sight glass configured to allow visual inspection of polymer is in the injection chamber (Crumby col. 3 and Fig. 1 discloses a “sight glass 32 mounted vertically on the side of chamber 14 for determining the level of liquid in the chamber”).
The combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson and Crumby does not expressly disclose the holding tank comprising a slight tube configured to allow visual inspection of a level of polymer remaining in the holding tank.
Riley teaches a chemical supply tank 5 having a transparent sight tube assembly 9 connected to the tank by upper and lower fittings. Riley states that the tube permits the user to ascertain the level of compound or solution within the supply tank (Riley col. 1 Fig. 1). Applying that sight tube to Crumby’s supply drum provides visual inspection of the polymer level in the claimed holding tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equip Crumby’s polymer supply drum with Riley’s sight tube to allow the operator to see how much polymer remains available for transfer into the measuring chamber, the purpose Riley expressly gives for its tank-mounted sight tube.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson, Crumby and Riley discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the injection chamber comprises an injection chamber vent with an injection chamber vent valve (Crumby col. 3 Fig. 1 measuring chamber 14 has “vent valve 30”) for allowing air into the injection chamber as polymer is withdrawn from the injection chamber into the intake tank (Crumby col. 5, Fig. 1 Crumby opens valve 30 to restore atmospheric pressure before transferring the measured liquid through the chamber outlet; in the combination, that outlet transfers polymer to ‘517’s intake chamber).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of ‘517, Vanderslice, Browne, Gustafson, Crumby and Riley discloses or renders obvious the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the mixing subsystem comprises one or more accumulator plates positioned in a bottom portion of the intake chamber (Browne col. 6-7 and Figs 1, 2 and 5-7 accumulator plates 14 are positioned near the bottom of its slurry tank) connected to receive compressed gas (Browne col. 6-7 compressor 15 supplies compressed air through conduit 16 and outlets 17 beneath the plates) and configured to release bubbles of gas upwardly through the intake chamber (Browne col. 7-8, Figs. 10-11 bubbles collect beneath the plates, emerge from under them, and rise through the slurry).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,292,739 in view of Vanderslice (US4816167). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons explained below.
Regarding claim 1, Sulphur’s patented claim 1 claims an apparatus for dewatering sludge comprising: a tank having an internal space divided by a dividing wall into an intake chamber and an extract chamber (claim 1 lines 2-4); an intake pipe connected to the intake chamber and comprising an intake valve for selectively opening and closing the intake pipe (claim 1 lines 5-7); a discharge pipe connected to the extract chamber and comprising a discharge valve for selectively opening and closing the discharge pipe (claim 1 lines 8-10); a transfer pipe providing fluid communication between a bottom portion of the intake chamber and a top portion of the extract chamber (claim 1 lines 11-12); a pump for selectively creating positive and negative pressure within the intake chamber (claim 1 lines 15-17); a screen within the extract chamber positioned between a second opening of the transfer pipe and the discharge pipe (claim 1 lines 18-20).
Sulphur’s patented claim 1 does not expressly require the transfer pipe extending upwardly out of the tank from the intake chamber and downwardly into the tank into the extract chamber and comprising a transfer valve external to the tank for selectively opening and closing the transfer pipe. Sulphur’s patented claim 1 additionally requires a door having a rim and a screen having a rim that presses against the door rim when the door is closed. Pending claim 1 does not exclude those structures, which may therefore remain in the modified apparatus.
Vanderslice relates to collecting and dewatering the contents of sanitary sewer traps using a tank divided into two compartments. Vanderslice teaches a transfer pipe extending upwardly out of the tank from one compartment and downwardly into the tank into another compartment (Vanderslice col. 3 and Fig. 2 crossover pipe 70 has a first leg 72 extending from near the floor of compartment 46, an intermediate portion 76 crossing externally above the tank, and a second leg 74 extending downwardly into compartment 48). Vanderslice further teaches a transfer valve external to the tank for selectively opening and closing the transfer pipe (Vanderslice col. 3 Fig. 2 “The intermediate portion includes a shutoff valve 77”). Vanderslice closes valve 77 during vacuum collection and opens that valves for pressure-driven transfer between the compartments (Vanderslice col. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus defined by Sulphur’s patented claim 1 to route its transfer pipe externally above the tank and provide a shutoff valve in that external portion, as taught by Vanderslice, to selectively isolate the chambers during vacuum intake and permit transfer between them during the pressure-driven dewatering operation. Vanderslice demonstrates this arrangement in a comparable two-compartment dewatering tank and expressly uses the crossover valve to control communication between the compartments during collection and transfer. Applying that arrangement to Sulphur’s claims apparatus would provide the same predictable control while retaining Sulphur’s bottom-to-top transfer path, pump, screen and cooperating door and screen rims. Accordingly, the apparatus of pending claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of the apparatus defined by Sulphur’s patented claim 1 and is not patentably distinct therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
