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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending:
Claims 1-12 and 20-21 are rejected.
Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
The present application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2021/025438 and is examined under a "unity of invention" standard. According to 37 C.F.R. § 1.475(b), "a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories" (emphasis added). One of the acceptable category combinations is "a product and a process of use of said product" (see 1.475(b)(2)).
The Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to two different groups (categories) of and requires election of one group. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Group I is directed to a product (the filter) and Group II is directed to a process of using the product. As acknowledged by the Examiner, the two groups have the shared technical features of a manifold, a main filter body, and a flow disruptor that comprises a tiered plate assembly with an arrangement of apertures without a magnet (see pages 3-4 of the Restriction Requirement). As Group II only further recites a location of the flow disruptor, Group II is a process of using Group I, which is an acceptable combination of categories that should be examined together.
Based thereon, Applicant respectfully submits that Groups I and II demonstrate unity of invention and reconsideration and withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement is respectfully requested.
The Examiner recognizes that the same corresponding technical feature is common to the groups. MPEP 1850 (II) states, in part:
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known, there is lack of unity a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
Examiner’s citation of art establishes that the common technical feature does not make a contribution over the art. As the technical feature does not define over the art, unity of invention is lacking therefore arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB 2017802, filed on 11/11/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 does not depend from any claim therefore fails to further limit the claimED invention of any preceding claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Von (EP 3 608 007).
Regarding claim 1, Von teaches a filter (air/sludge separator) comprising:
a. a manifold (upper part 5) having an inlet (inlet opening 3) and an outlet (outlet opening 4);
b. a main filter body (lower part 6) connected to the manifold (i.e. upper part 5), wherein the main filter body comprises a flow disrupter, the flow disrupter comprising a tiered plate assembly (sieve plates 7) arranged in the filter body (i.e. lower part 6), wherein each plate (i.e. lower part 6) in the tiered plate assembly comprises an arrangement of apertures (see Fig. 2),
wherein the inlet of the manifold, the tiered plate assembly, the outlet of the manifold and a bottom of the main filter body are configured, to define a flow path for fluid to be treated (see Fig. 2), the flow path entering through the inlet of the manifold, passing into the filter body and down through the apertures of the tiered plate assembly, and passing the bottom of the main filter body which is configured to collect the magnetic and non- magnet particles removed from suspension in the fluid to settle into the bottom of the main filter body (the caking of the magnetite is significantly reduce, see pg. 3), and the flow path being redirected back up through the tiered plate assembly to exit through the outlet of the manifold (see flow arrows in Fig. 2): and
wherein the filter does not contain a magnet (the magnet in the air/sludge separator of Von is optional, see claim 9 because a sieve or screen can be used to remove magnetite particles).
Regarding claim 12, Von teaches the filter according to claim 1, wherein the main filter body comprises a top portion and a bottom portion and the flow disrupter is arranged in the top portion of the main filter body whereby, in use, when fluid to be treated enters the filter through the inlet of the manifold, the fluid passes into the top portion of the main filter body and down through the apertures of tiered plate assembly and into the bottom portion of the main filter body and is redirected back up through the tiered plate assembly in the top portion of the main filter body to exit through the outlet of the manifold, whereby particles held in suspension by the fluid are removed and settle into the bottom of the bottom portion of the main filter body (As shown in Fig. 2, the flow arrows depict fluid entering the filter body and being redirected within the upper portion. The fluid then proceeds downward through the tiered plate region 7, and particles settle in the bottom portion 6, after which fluid is redirected upward toward the outlet).
Regarding claim 20, Von teaches a hydronic heating or cooling system (heating system, see pg. 2; hydronic is non-limiting) comprising the filter of claim 1 (air/sludge separator 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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Wells (GB 430,375).
Regarding claims 2-4, Von teaches the filter according to claim 1, wherein the tiered plated assembly comprises at least a top tier and a bottom tier (the plurality of plates 7 arranged in upper and lower portions correspond to top and bottom tiers under BRI) arranged around and joined to a cylindrical tube (Von, plastic sleeve 25).
Von does not teach that the tiered plate assembly is fixably attached to a bolt, wherein the bolt is secured to a top inner surface of the main filter body; wherein the bolt comprises a threaded end that is threaded into a corresponding recessed opening at the top inner surface of the main filter body; and wherein the bolt is fitted through the cylindrical tube to attach the tiered plate assembly to the main filter body.
In a related field of endeavor, Wells teaches filter and pad thereof (see ABS) wherein a plate assembly (filter pad 12) is fixably attached to a bolt (post 23), wherein the bolt is secured to a location of the main filter body (see Fig. 1); wherein the bolt comprises a threaded end that is threaded into a corresponding recessed opening at a location of the main filter body (see Fig. 1); and wherein the bolt (i.e. post 23) is fitted through the central opening (corresponds to central bore/opening) to attach the plate assembly to the main filter body (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tiered plate assembly of Von by incorporating the bolt (i.e. threaded post 23) as disclosed by Wells because it is known that fastening members are commonly used to fix filter components in place and allow disassembly for maintenance.
It would have been further obvious to provide the threaded end in engagement with a corresponding opening at a location on the housing, including a top inner surface, of Von (as previously modified by Wells) because said location is convenient and accessible for mounting of internal components, therefore the combination of Von and Wells would have resulted in the bolt/fastening member being secured to the top inner surface of the main filter body with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been further obvious to modify the fastening arrangement of Von by incorporating the bolt (i.e. post 23) of Wells such that said bolt extends through the cylindrical tube (i.e. plastic sleeve 25) of Von because it is known to arrange a bolt (i.e. post 23) in a similar fashion using a central bore/opening to secure stacked filter components (Wells, see Fig. 1) and it would have improved structural alignment and secure retaining of the tiered plate within the housing, thereby achieving the predictable result of using a known fastening technique. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 6, Von and Wells teach the filter according to claim 4.
The combination of references that the bottom tier comprises at least two plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter plate of Von by duplicating said filter plate to provide at least two plates in the bottom tier because it increases particle separation efficiency, since adding additional plates increases the available surface area and flow disruption within the fluid path, thereby enhancing settling and removal of suspended particles.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Wells (GB 430,375) and further in view of Wei (CN 202155108).
Regarding claim 5, Von and Wells teach the filter according to claim 4, wherein the top tier comprises an upper plate and a lower plate (Von, see Fig. 2)…
The combination of references does not teach that the upper plate has a smaller diameter than the lower plate.
In a related field of endeavor, Wei teaches a sewage filter (see ABS) wherein the upper plate has a smaller diameter than the lower plate (as shown in Fig. 1, the plates 11 arranged in a conical/stepped configuration, wherein each plate extends further outwards and has a larger radial footprint therefore the upper plate has a smaller diameter than the lower plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter plate of Von by configuring the upper plate to have a smaller diameter than the lower plate as disclosed by Wei because flocs size become larger and larger, and finally settle with large-mass particles accumulated on the surface slides down along the slope of the cover body by gravity and sinks into the mud collecting bucket, thereby, achieving the purpose of removing suspended matter in raw water and cleaning the water body (Wei, see ¶33-¶35).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Wells (GB 430,375) in view of Wei (CN 202155108) and further in view of Ager (USPN 6,159,258).
Regarding claims 7-8, Von, Wells and Wei teach the filter according to claim 5.
The combination of references does not teach that the upper plate of the top tier comprises an outer edge and a plurality of equidistant spokes that connect the outer edge to the cylindrical tube, whereby a plurality of apertures are created; wherein lower plate of the top tier comprises an outer edge and a second concentric circle arranged equidistant between the outer edge and the cylindrical tube, wherein a first set of spokes connect the outer edge to the second concentric circle to create a plurality of apertures and a second set of spokes connect the second concentric circle to the cylindrical tube, whereby a plurality of apertures are created.
In a related field of endeavor, Ager teaches an air filter element (see ABS) wherein a filter structure (primary filter element shown in Fig. 10) comprises an outer edge (corresponds to edge near frame 70) and a plurality of circumferentially spaced spokes (spokes 77) that connect the outer edge to the central opening (hub 72), whereby a plurality of apertures are created (see Fig. 10); wherein the filter structure comprises an outer edge (i.e. corresponds to edge near frame 70) and a second concentric circle (formed by intermediate struts 78) arranged circumferentially spaced between the outer edge and the central opening (see Fig. 10), wherein a first set of spokes connect the outer edge to the second concentric circle to create a plurality of apertures and a second set of spokes connect the second concentric circle to the central opening, whereby a plurality of apertures are created (see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tiered filter plates of Von by configuring with struts and spokes as disclosed by Ager because it facilitates mounting of the filter and improves the strength of the filter (Ager, see C4/L60-67).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Wells (GB 430,375) and further in view of Ager (USPN 6,159,258).
Regarding claim 9, Von and Wells teach the filter according to claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach that each of the plates of the lower tier comprises an outer edge and a second concentric circle arranged equidistant between the outer edge and the cylindrical tube, wherein a first set of spokes connect the outer edge to the second concentric circle to create a plurality of apertures and a second set of spokes connect the second concentric circle to the cylindrical tube, whereby a plurality of apertures are created.
In a related field of endeavor, Ager teaches an air filter element (see ABS) wherein a filter structure comprises an outer edge (corresponds to edge near frame 70) and a second concentric circle (formed by intermediate struts 78) arranged circumferentially spaced between the outer edge and the central opening (see Fig. 10), wherein a first set of spokes connect the outer edge to the second concentric circle to create a plurality of apertures and a second set of spokes connect the second concentric circle to the central opening, whereby a plurality of apertures are created (see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tiered filter plates of Von to configure with struts and spokes as disclosed by Ager because it facilitates mounting of the filter and improves the strength of the filter (Ager, see C4/L60-67).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Petzolt ( DE 19932795).
Regarding claim 10, Von teaches the filter according to claim 1.
Von does not teach that the manifold comprises a bypass hole, wherein the inlet of the manifold and the outlet of the manifold are in fluid communication with each other, whereby flow through the main filter body is reduced.
In a related field of endeavor, Petzolt teaches a method and system in hot water supply networks (see ABS) wherein the manifold comprises a bypass path (in the direction of the arrow c, see pg. 4), wherein the inlet of the manifold and the outlet of the manifold are in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 3), whereby flow through the main filter body is reduced (in the direction of the arrow c shown in Fig. 3, also see pgs. 3-4, is shorter therefore the flow through the filter body is reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Von (as previously modified by Petzolt) with by incorporating bypath path in the manifold as disclosed by Petzolt because it protects intermingling of warm water interfering with the hot water system (Petzolt, see pg. 2) which is desirable in the system of Von because it is tied to a hot water circuit (Von, see pg. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von (EP 3 608 007) in view of Petzolt ( DE 19932795) and further in view of Fenton (USPN 8,080,157).
Regarding claim 11, Von and Petzolt teach the filter according to claim 10.
The combination does not teach that the manifold comprises a full bore valve to reduce fluid pressure loss within the filter.
In a related field of endeavor, Fenton teaches a gravitational water separator (see ABS) comprising a full bore valve (41) to reduce fluid pressure loss within the filter (Fenton teaches in C3/L10-20 that the FBIV 41 provides a separation by-pass mode and provides over field life in case of flow disruption through the separator 21 which implies that the valve 41 reduces pressure loss within the filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve type of Von (as previously modified by Petzolt) with the full bore valve of Fenton because full bore valves are known to minimize pressure loss by providing an unobstructed flow path. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773