DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/26.
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.
The term “drive means” in line 14 of claim 1 is being interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-23 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, lines 5-6 recite, “a filter cage supporting one or more filter media, the filter cage being rotatably mounted and rotating about an axis of rotation within the housing”. The claim is directed to an apparatus and line 6 recites a process and therefore the claim claims both an apparatus and a method step of using the apparatus. Lines 16-17 also recite a process: “the feed then passes through the one or more filter media and exits as a filtered liquid via the outlet”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear whether infringement would occur if one creates an apparatus with a filter cage capable of rotating or if infringement would occur when the filter cage actually rotates. Similarly, it is unclear if infringement would occur if feed were configured to pass through the media and exit a filtered liquid or if infringement would occur when feed actually passes through the media and exits as a filtered liquid.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one baffle surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the one or more baffle surfaces”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one baffle surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the one or more baffle surfaces”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the baffle surface(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the one or more baffle surfaces”.
Claim 15, recites that feed exits the pipe and passes through the exterior surface of the filter media and exits the interior surface of the filter media as a filtered liquid. However, claim 15 depends from claim 14, which requires the pipe to place the feed through the pipe to the interior of the filter cage. Therefore, claim 14 requires the feed to be delivered to the interior of the filter media. It is unclear how the feed can flow to the interior of the filter cage and filter media and then pass through the exterior of the filter media and exit the interior surface as a filtered liquid. For examination purposes the flow is assumed to be in the opposite direction, from inside to outside.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the effluent” and “the filtered effluent" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the feed” and “the filtered liquid”, respectively.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Wallace et al. US 2023/0381693.
The applied reference has a common applicant and two common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-23 are clearly anticipated, see figures 10a-h of Wallace.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/122862 (US equivalent to Jones US 2020/0316501 will be referenced for purposes of examination) in view of Welch US 2014/0238446.
Claims 1 and 13, Jones teaches a filter unit comprising: a housing (102), an inlet (126) configured to allow a feed to enter the housing, an outlet (104) configured to allow a filtered feed to exit the housing, a filter cage (108) supporting one or more filter media (118), the filter cage being rotatably mounted about an axis of rotation within the housing, the filter media having pores (122) with a mean pore size of 1-100 microns, a drive means (132) (par. 30, motor) for rotating the filter cage, the filter unit being configured such that feed from the inlet is directed towards an interior of the filter cage, the feed is further configured to pass through the filter media and exit as a filtered fluid via the outlet (fig. 1-2, abstract). The recitation of the filter unit being suitable for filtering microfibers within a feed is a recitation of intended use of the apparatus and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus. Jones does teach the apparatus being used to filter microfibers (par. 56). Jones does not teach one or more baffles surfaces.
Welch teaches a filter unit comprising: a housing (64), an inlet (70) configured to allow a feed to enter the housing, an outlet (74) configured to allow a filtered feed to exit the housing, a filter cage (130) supporting filter media (140), the filter cage being rotatably mounted about an axis of rotation with the housing (par 36), the filter media having pores (144), one or more baffle surfaces (160, 85, 180 (fig. 4-5); 360, 380 (fig. 7); 460, 480 (fig. 8)) being located adjacent to at least a portion of the interior and/or exterior surfaces of the filter media, the baffle surface and filter cage being configured such that during rotation of the filter cage, the filter media moves relative to the baffle surfaces such that turbulent flow of fluid is encouraged near the interior and/or exterior surfaces of the filter media, a drive means (motor 92) for rotating the filter cage (fig. 3-14). Jones teaches that during operation of the filter becomes blocked with collected solid material (par 72) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the baffle surfaces of Welch because when the filter cage is rotated the baffles surfaces provide a narrow gap such that the angular velocity of the fluid increases resulting in a low pressure at the gap where particles are lifted from the filter media and thereby clean the filter media (par 45-47).
Claims 2-6, 9-11, Welch further teaches the baffle surfaces are located either radially outward from or radially inward from the filter media (fig. 3-14); the baffle surfaces are adjacent to at least a portion of the exterior surface of the filter media (fig. 3-14); the baffle surfaces are connected to the housing and are configured to remain static during rotation of the filter cage (fig. 3-14); the baffle surfaces have a wave shape (fig. 3-14); the wave is an arc or sine wave or a combination of the two (fig. 3-14); the baffle surfaces are parallel to the filter media (fig. 3-14); the baffle surface is adjacent to a second surface of the filter media, the second surface being a downstream surface (fig.3-14); and the baffle surface covers no more than 90% of the axial length of the filter media (fig. 4).
Claims 7 and 8, Welch further teaches the wave of the baffle provides a variation in distance from any point on the baffle surface to the filter media, when measured along any radial direction towards the axis of the rotation of the filter cage, the wave provides a furthest distance from the point on the baffle surface to the filter media when measured along any radial direction towards the axis of the rotation of the filter cage (fig. 3-14). Welch does not specifically teach the relationship between the variation and the further distance or the variation distance, however, the figures (i.e. figure 8) show that the variation in distance is at least 5% of the furthest distance. The recited relationships are a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim 12, Jones teaches the filter cage supports the filter media to retain it in a shape but does not teach the recited shapes. The configuration of the apparatus is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Claims 14-17, Jones further teaches the filter unit comprises a pipe (at 126) configured such that feed from the inlet passes through the interior of the filter cage through the pipe (fig. 1); the filter unit is configured so that feed exits from the pipe and passes through the interior surface of the filter media and exits the exterior surface of the filter media as a filtered liquid (fig. 1); the filter media is a woven or non-woven mesh or perforated sheet (fig. 1, par. 62); the filter unit comprises an impellor (134) in the housing upstream of the filter media (fig. 1); the housing comprises an opening (at 112) and a movable lid (124) that movable between a first configuration (fig. 1) and a second configuration (removed), in the first configuration the movable lid cooperates with the housing to seal the opening so entry of the feed into the housing is through the inlet only and exit of the filtered liquid from the housing is through the outlet only and in the second configuration the movably lid has moved to expose the opening in the housing so that filtride accumulated on the filter media can be removed from the housing through the opening, and wherein the filter cage is rotatable to throw filtride from the filter media through the opening when the movable lid is in the second configuration, in that the filter media is still capable of rotating (fig. 2, par 263); the filter unit is configured to rotate the filter media via the drive means (fig. 1-2, par 252), the recitation of “to throw filtride form the filter media” is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus, the drive means would still be capable of rotating the filter media when the lid is removed; the movable lid is shaped as a cylinder (fig. 1); and the movable lid is configured to move linearly between the first and second configurations (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/122862 (US equivalent to Jones US 2020/0316501 will be referenced for purposes of examination) in view of Welch US 2014/0238446 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wallace et al. US 2023/0381693.
Jones in view of Welch teaches as obvious the filter unit of claim 18 but does not teach a container for receiving filtride what is external to the housing.
Wallace teaches a filter unit comprising a housing, an inlet and outlet and a filter cage supporting a filter media, the filter cage being rotatable and a container (2007) for receiving filtride that is external to the housing, the container is adjacent to and radially outwards of an opening from the axis of rotation (fig. 10a-h). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art obvious to us ethe container of Wallace as the container allows the filtride to be collected, removed and disposed of by the user (par 297).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights