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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 27OCT2025 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25JUL2025. Applicant's arguments filed 27OCT2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the drawings objections:
Figs. 1-2 and new Fig. 3 still have #10 as representing both a pump and a manifold. Please provide a unique reference sign for each part of the device in the drawings and the specification.
Figs. 2 and par. [0038,0044] still have #11 as representing both a valve and a container. Please provide a unique reference sign for each part of the device or provide further explanation in the remarks and specification without adding new matter. It is unclear whether the Applicant considers a valve and a container (not shown) as being equivalent means for removing gases or what the intended scope of the claims is (see 112(b) below).
Figs. 1-2 still have floating reference signs not connected to the device. New Fig. 3 appears to have corrected the issue.
See below for new issues with Fig. 3.
Regarding LUKSCHANDER, see below as the reference teaches removing waste air. If gas is accumulating in a pipeline, it is obvious to provide a vent for removing gas. Note that the filters of LUKSCHANDER are treating wastewater from the gas scrubber.
See below for the combination of LUKSCHANDER as modified by SATOSHI.
Regarding claim 9, a filtering belt is a common filter known in the art of filtration, which obviously may be used to separate solids from liquids.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “10” has been used to designate both a pump, Figs. 1,3 and a manifold, Fig. 2.
reference character “11” has been used to designate both a valve, Fig. 2 and a container, par. [0038,0044].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 #2,3,4,5 and Fig. 2 #3 are floating and not connected to the device and/or parts without labels (see new Fig. 3 for a solution to overcome this objection).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 3: (l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. MPEP 608.02.V; 37 CFR 1.84.(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend the specification to reflect amendments to the drawings, including at least a description of new Fig. 3 on P6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “the transit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant may amend the claim to e.g. - - a duct for [[the]] transit of said contaminated water - -.
Claim 1 line(s) 15 sets forth the limitation “means for removing any gases”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“means for removing any gases”, could be a container or a valve. It is unclear whether the Applicant considers a valve and a container (not shown) as being equivalent means for removing gases or including other structure not specified. The intended structure is not clear and so is the claim scope.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 5 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the reaction”. “the reaction” appears to be absorption, not a chemical reaction? Thus the claim scope is unclear.
Claim 9 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “type”. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). See MPEP § 2173.05(b).III.E. The Applicant may amend the claim to e.g. - - said further filter comprises a filtering web or belt […] - -.
Claim 11 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “means for introducing water into said scrubber”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification as originally filed does not describe “means for introducing water into said scrubber” or any related structure. Newly filed Fig. 3 similarly does not show any meaningful structure beyond a “black box”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 line(s) 7 sets forth the limitation “a first tank for activated carbon powders”. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, which includes “a tank for activated carbon powders”. It is unclear whether the first tank of claim 11 is the same or different from the tank of claim 1 (see also e.g. Fig. 3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUKSCHANDER (US 20130036868) in view of SATOSHI (JP 2007260522).
Regarding claims 1,11, LUKSCHANDER teaches process for producing pig iron or liquid primary steel products (title, Figs.) including:
a scrubber (Fig. 1 #4,5);
means for introducing water into said scrubber (“wet cleaning”; par. [0014-0015]);
a duct (lines leading to filters #6,7);
a filter (Fig. 1 #6,7) in communication with said duct; and,
means for removing gases (discharge of waste air; Fig. 1 #8,9; par. [0018]) in communication with said duct and upstream of said filters.
LUKSCHANDER does not teach a tank in communication with said duct and introduction means capable of introducing activated carbon powders into said duct. However, SATOSHI teaches a water treatment method using powdery activated carbon (title, Figs., see translation) including:
a duct (Fig. 1 #4);
a tank (Fig. 1 #6) in communication with said duct by introduction means (Fig. 1 #5) capable of introducing activated carbon powders (par. [0010]) into said duct, which is upstream a membrane filter (Fig. 1 #3) in communication with said duct capable of separating absorption products.
SATOSHI teaches that the cost can be reduced without reducing the effect of removing odor and chromaticity (par. [0013]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the system of LUKSCHANDER to include an upstream tank for introduction of activated carbon as taught by SATOSHI in order to more effectively remove pollutants at a reduced cost. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that the limitations “water”, “pollutant”, “heavy metal”, “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAHs” and “absorption products” sets forth a method and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 2, LUKSCHANDER teaches the system comprises at least two of said first filters in parallel (see e.g. Fig. 1 #6 with two parallel filters) and thus alternately connectable to and isolatable from said duct and capable of treating water continuously.
Claim(s) 3,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUKSCHANDER (US 20130036868) in view of SATOSHI (JP 2007260522) and BARMORE (US 3559809).
Regarding claims 3,5-7, LUKSCHANDER does not a valve. However, BARMORE teaches a filter backwash means (title, Figs.) including:
two filters (e.g. Fig. 3 #14,14a) arranged in parallel, which are capable of being alternatively connectable to and isolatable from a duct by at least one valve (e.g. Fig. 3 #30; see C1/L74-C2/L4); and,
means for regenerating the filters including a pump (Fig. 3 #16) in communication with said duct downstream of said filter;
wherein said pump is capable of withdrawing the filtrate, and;
wherein said pump is in communication with the filters and capable of backwashing the filters with the filtrate; and,
a second filtrate tank (Fig. 3 #12) capable of providing backwashing water in counter-flow (C1/L30-33,54-58; C2/L7-10).
BARMORE teaches the provision of simple filter backwashing means in a parallel filter system, where filters may be operated individually so as to provide continuous filtration and simplify maintenance (C1/L11-13,22-25).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the filter system of LUKSCHANDER to include parallel backwashable filters in order to provide a simple continuous filtration with simplified maintenance as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUKSCHANDER (US 20130036868) in view of SATOSHI (JP 2007260522) and BARMORE (US 3559809) and HOLZWARTH (US 7300585).
Regarding claims 8-9, LUKSCHANDER’s modified device does not teach a further filter positioned downstream of said second tank. However, HOLZWARTH teaches a method of treatment of effluent stream (title, Figs.) including:
a first tank (Fig. 1 #20);
a first filter (e.g. Fig. 1 #24);
a second tank (Fig. 1 #28); and,
a second filter (belt filter; Fig. 1 #34; C3/L32).
HOLZWARTH teaches such a system sufficiently neutralizes harmful constituents so that the treated effluent can be safely discharged into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) while significantly reducing overall waste volume (abstract, C1/L20-36).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of LUKSCHANDER to include a further filter positioned downstream of the second tank in order to sufficiently neutralizes harmful constituents for safe discharge and reduce waste volume as taught by HOLZWARTH. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 10, LUKSCHANDER’s modified device does not teach a removable filter. However, it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make the filter separable or removable, it would be obvious to make it removable for that purpose, for example, cleaning or maintenance. See MPEP 2144.04.V.C.
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~11:00~15:00.
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 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777