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
The restriction requirement mailed 6-23-25 is withdrawn due to the petition decision dated 10-27-25. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional or continuing application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of any claim of the present invention, the divisional or continuing application may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recite(s) “monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is properly performing at least one function of said underdrain anti-clogging device”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitations of “monitoring” and “determine” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making an observation of the pressure readings and making a judgment on if the device is performing properly.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the judgement is made no action is taken based on the mental step(s). Therefore, the mental observation and judgment is not integrated into a particular practical application because the metal step is not used to perform any action in a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites providing an underdrain anti-clogging device, and configuring said underdrain anti-clogging device to allow the washing fluid to pass through which are well understood, routine and conventional in art, as discussed below in the prior art rejection. Claim 11 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recite(s) “monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is filled or partially filled with trapped impurities to such an extent that a flow of washing fluid through said underdrain anti- clogging device is unduly restricted.”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitations of “monitoring” and “determine” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making an observation of the pressure readings and making a judgment on if the flow of washing fluid is unduly restricted.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the judgement is made no action is taken based on the mental step(s). Therefore, the mental observation and judgment is not integrated into a particular practical application because the metal step is not used to perform any action in a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites providing an underdrain anti-clogging device, and configuring said underdrain anti-clogging device to allow the washing fluid to pass through which are well understood, routine and conventional in art, as discussed below in the prior art rejection. Claim 12 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recite(s) “monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device has deteriorated to an extent that it cannot trap impurities in the washing fluid”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitations of “monitoring” and “determine” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making an observation of the pressure readings and making a judgment on the deterioration of the device.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the judgement is made no action is taken based on the mental step(s). Therefore, the mental observation and judgment is not integrated into a particular practical application because the metal step is not used to perform any action in a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites providing an underdrain anti-clogging device, and configuring said underdrain anti-clogging device to allow the washing fluid to pass through which are well understood, routine and conventional in art, as discussed below in the prior art rejection. Claim 12 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “The apparatus of Claim 8”. A claim cannot depend from itself. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret claim 8 as being dependent on claim 7, since claim 8 recites “said first pressure sensor” which is only recited in claim 7.
Claims 10-14 recite “further including the step(s) of: (a)” however step (a) has already been identified in claim 9 from which claims 10-14 depend, as a step of “providing an underdrain”. Step (a) of claim 1 appears to be a different action from “providing a first sensor”, “monitoring the pressure” and “detachably connecting said underdrain” both by the use of different action terminology i.e. “providing” vs. “monitoring” and by the claims defining each action as its own step with the phrase “further including the step”. Claim 10 further defines an additional step (b). As a result, it is unclear what step (a) and (b), as defined by claims 10-14, are actually required to encompass.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDougald US 6,093,329 (US’329).
Regarding claim 1, US’329 teaches an apparatus for preventing clogging of an underdrain of a treatment unit having a filter bed for treating water or wastewater, said apparatus comprising: (a) an underdrain anti-clogging device (underdrain headers 48 having slots or apertures 44 about the circumference thereof which allow filtrate to enter, or backwash water to exit, the header, see fig. 1, col 4, the slots or apertures would perform the functions of openings sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities in the washing fluid describe in applicants specification, see page 13-14 of applicants filed specification, claim 1 does not defined the type of impurity or define any particular structure that prevents clogging, therefore any general structure that provides any type of limited opening, would read on the claim apparatus) operably associated with a washing fluid delivery member for directing washing fluid to the underdrain of the treatment unit to wash the filter bed of the treatment unit (ports 50 of the partition 22 are designed to be engaged by a backwash sealing shoe 52 which, in turn, connects to a main backwash pump 54 that backwashes the filter bed, abstract, col. 4-5 see fig. 1); and, (b) said underdrain anti-clogging device being configured to allow the washing fluid to pass through said underdrain anti-clogging device and into the underdrain while trapping impurities in the washing fluid to prevent the impurities in the washing fluid from entering or clogging the underdrain (the slots or apertures would perform the functions of openings sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities in the washing fluid describe in applicants specification, as discussed above. The examiner notes that allowing washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities recites the intended use of the apparatus, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The apparatus of US’329 teaches an apparatus connected to a backwash fluid system that allows the backwash to pass through slots or apertures of the apparatus and therefore would be capable of performing the function. Since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use).
Regarding claim 2, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 1. US’329 further teaches wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device includes a fluid pass through and impurities trapping section having a plurality of openings wherein each of the plurality of openings are sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through each of the plurality of openings while trapping in said underdrain anti-clogging device impurities in the washing fluid that have the potential of clogging the underdrain (underdrain headers 48 having slots or apertures 44 about the circumference thereof, as further discussed above).
Regarding claim 3, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 1. US’329 further teaches wherein: (a) at least a portion of said underdrain anti-clogging device is disposed in a housing of the treatment unit housing the filter bed (headers 48 is located at the bottom of filter basin 26, see fig. 1, col. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 1. US’329 further teaches wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device is positioned relative to the washing fluid delivery member such that all washing fluid directed to the underdrain by the washing fluid delivery member must pass through said underdrain anti-clogging device prior to entering the underdrain (the backwash system is connected to the filter bed system through port 50 which allows back wash to enter the filter bed through header 48, see fig. 1 col 4-6).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’329 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cochrane US 4,211,656 (US’656).
Regarding claims 5-6, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 1.
US’329 does not teach wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device is removable so that said underdrain anti- clogging device can be cleaned or replaced with a new underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 5, wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device is configured to be removable without altering any corresponding component to such an extent that any corresponding component cannot be reused after removal of said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 6.
US’656 teaches filter and reactor systems for treating liquids including a backwashing system and a filter bed where the backwash enters the filter bean through screens (abstract, col. 4-5, fig. 2-4). Each drain 90 has two cylindrical screen elements 92, which extend from the ends of a PVC T-shaped center 94. Screens 92 are approximately four inches long and are made of stainless steel with openings sufficiently small to retain media 80. T-shaped centers 94 are removably connected to pipes 88 to allow for replacement of a drain 90 should it malfunction (col. 3). Therefore, the headers of US’329 correspond to the drain of US’656, and US’656 teaches that the apparatus of US’329 can be modified to make the headers removable to allow for replacement of the drain should it malfunction. Applicants recited “corresponding components” are not described to be any particular components and therefore can read on any components of the entire filter bed of US’329. Since US’656 teaches that the drain is replaceable, it would appear that any other corresponding structure, e.g. walls, pipes, etc. would be reused once the drain is replaced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’329 to include wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device is removable so that said underdrain anti- clogging device can be cleaned or replaced with a new underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 5, wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device is configured to be removable without altering any corresponding component to such an extent that any corresponding component cannot be reused after removal of said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 6 because US’656 teaches it allows for replacement of parts should it malfunction and the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make pieces separable, it would be obvious to make the parts separable for that purpose, see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’329 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roberts US 2010/0282651 (US’651).
Regarding claim 7, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 1.
US’329 does not teach a) a first pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure of a fluid exiting said underdrain anti- clogging device and a second pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure of a fluid prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device.
US’651 teaches a method and apparatus for monitoring an underdrain in a filter system for filtering water or wastewater (abstract). The method uses two pressure sensors, gauge G, positioned at the bottom of the filter bed which monitors the cleaning fluid exiting the flume and sensor E monitoring the pressure before the cleaning fluid enters the flume. By obtaining pressure readings from pressure gauges E and G and flow rate from flow meter F, a differential pressure across underdrain 6 can be determined at a given fluid flow rate. This pressure differential can then be compared against a predetermined pressure differential at the same flow rate to determine if underdrain 6 is operating acceptably, determine if any obstructions are present and if the underdrain needs to be serviced. The second pressure gauge G permits the monitoring system to isolate the underdrain 6, i.e., the differential pressure obtained from the readings of gauges E and G is not affected by other components of the filter system, e.g., the filter bed 4 (para. 3-6, 11-14 and 27-30, see fig. 2). The teachings of US’651 can be applied to the apparatus of US’329 to monitor the performance of the header 48 to ensure proper performance and determine if any obstructions/trapped impurities are present that would deteriorate the header to an extent that it cannot trap impurities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’329 to include a) a first pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure of a fluid exiting said underdrain anti- clogging device and a second pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure of a fluid prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device because US’651 teaches it can be used to indicate if the underdrain needs to be serviced and use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’329 in view of US’651 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cochrane US 4,211,656 (US’656).
Regarding claim 8, US’329 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 7. The modified apparatus of US’329 further teaches wherein: (a) said first pressure sensor is attached to said underdrain anti-clogging device (the modified device of US’329 includes a pressure gauge attached to the underdrain as taught by US’651, which corresponds to the underdrain header of US’329);
US’329 does not teaches (b) said underdrain anti-clogging device includes at least a first flange detachably connected to one or more components of the treatment unit to support and facilitate removal of said underdrain anti-clogging device.
US’656 teaches filter and reactor systems for treating liquids including a backwashing system and a filter bed where the backwash enters the filter bean through screens (abstract, col. 4-5, fig. 2-4). Each drain 90 has two cylindrical screen elements 92, which extend from the ends of a PVC T-shaped center 94. Screens 92 are approximately four inches long and are made of stainless steel with openings sufficiently small to retain media 80. T-shaped centers 94 are removably connected to pipes 88 to allow for replacement of a drain 90 should it malfunction (col. 3). Therefore, the headers of US’329 correspond to the drain of US’656, and US’656 teaches that the apparatus of US’329 can be modified to make the headers removable including connectable pipping/flanges to allow for replacement of the drain should it malfunction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’923 to include (b) said underdrain anti-clogging device includes at least a first flange detachably connected to one or more components of the treatment unit to support and facilitate removal of said underdrain anti-clogging device because US’656 teaches it allows for replacement of structure should it malfunction and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
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.
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDougald US 6,093,329 (US’329).
Regarding claim 9, US’329 teaches a method for preventing clogging of an underdrain of an existing or new treatment unit having an underdrain and a filter bed for treating water or wastewater, said method comprising the steps of: (a) providing an underdrain anti-clogging device (underdrain headers 48 having slots or apertures 44 about the circumference thereof which allow filtrate to enter, or backwash water to exit, the header, see fig. 1, col 4, the slots or apertures function as openings sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities in the washing fluid describe in applicants specification, see page 13-14 of applicants filed specification, claim 1 does not defined the type of impurity or define any particular structure that prevents clogging, therefore any general structure that provides any type of limited opening, would read on the claim anti-clogging device provided)
operably associated with a washing fluid delivery member for directing washing fluid to the underdrain of the treatment unit to wash the filter bed of the treatment unit (ports 50 of the partition 22 are designed to be engaged by a backwash sealing shoe 52 which, in turn, connects to a main backwash pump 54 that backwashes the filter bed, abstract, col. 4-5 see fig. 1);
and, (b) configuring said underdrain anti-clogging device to allow the washing fluid to pass through said underdrain anti-clogging device and into the underdrain while trapping impurities in the washing fluid to prevent the impurities in the washing fluid from entering or clogging the underdrain (the slots or apertures would perform the functions of openings sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities in the washing fluid describe in applicants specification, see fig. 1, col 4, claim 1 does not defined the type of impurity or any particular structure that prevents clogging, further claim 1 does not require flowing a washing fluid through said underdrain, only a step of configuring the underdrain, therefore any general structure that provides any type of limited opening, would read on the claimed configuring of the underdrain anti-clogging device provided).
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’329 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Roberts US 2010/0282651 (US’651).
Regarding claims 10-13, US’329 teaches the method for preventing clogging according to claim 10.
US’329 does not teach (a) providing a first pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure exiting said underdrain anti-clogging device; and, (b) providing a second pressure sensor for sensing washing fluid pressure prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 10, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is properly performing at least one function of said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 11, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is filled or partially filled with trapped impurities to such an extent that a flow of washing fluid through said underdrain anti- clogging device is unduly restricted, with regard to claim 12, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device has deteriorated to an extent that it cannot trap impurities in the washing fluid, with regard to claim 13.
US’651 teaches a method and apparatus for monitoring an underdrain in a filter system for filtering water or wastewater (abstract). The method uses two pressure sensors, gauge G, positioned at the bottom of the filter bed which monitors the cleaning fluid exiting the flume and sensor E monitoring the pressure before the cleaning fluid enters the flume. By obtaining pressure readings from pressure gauges E and G and flow rate from flow meter F, a differential pressure across underdrain 6 can be determined at a given fluid flow rate. This pressure differential can then be compared against a predetermined pressure differential at the same flow rate to determine if underdrain 6 is operating acceptably, determine if any obstructions are present and if the underdrain needs to be serviced. The second pressure gauge G permits the monitoring system to isolate the underdrain 6, i.e., the differential pressure obtained from the readings of gauges E and G is not affected by other components of the filter system, e.g., the filter bed 4 (para. 3-6, 11-14 and 27-30, see fig. 2). The teachings of US’651 can be applied to the method of US’329 to monitor the performance of the header 48 to ensure proper performance and determine if any obstructions/trapped impurities are present that would deteriorate the header to an extent that it cannot trap impurities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’329 to include (a) providing a first pressure sensor for sensing fluid pressure exiting said underdrain anti-clogging device; and, (b) providing a second pressure sensor for sensing washing fluid pressure prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 10, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is properly performing at least one function of said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 11, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device is filled or partially filled with trapped impurities to such an extent that a flow of washing fluid through said underdrain anti- clogging device is unduly restricted, with regard to claim 12, (a) monitoring the pressure sensed by said first pressure sensor and said second pressure sensor to determine if said underdrain anti-clogging device has deteriorated to an extent that it cannot trap impurities in the washing fluid, with regard to claim 13. because US’651 teaches it can be used to indicate if the header needs to be serviced and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’329 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cochrane US 4,211,656 (US’656).
Regarding claim 14, US’329 teaches the method for preventing clogging according to claim 9.
US’329 does not teach the further step of (a) detachably connecting said underdrain anti-clogging device to the new or existing treatment unit so that said underdrain anti-clogging device can be removed to be cleaned or replaced with a new underdrain anti-clogging device.
US’656 teaches filter and reactor systems for treating liquids including a backwashing system and a filter bed where the backwash enters the filter bean through screens (abstract, col. 4-5, fig. 2-4). Each drain 90 has two cylindrical screen elements 92, which extend from the ends of a PVC T-shaped center 94. Screens 92 are approximately four inches long and are made of stainless steel with openings sufficiently small to retain media 80. T-shaped centers 94 are removably connected to pipes 88 to allow for replacement of a drain 90 should it malfunction (col. 3). Therefore, the headers of US’329 correspond to the drain of US’656, and US’656 teaches that the device of US’329 can be modified to make the headers removable to allow for replacement of the drain should it malfunction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’329 to include the further step of (a) detachably connecting said underdrain anti-clogging device to the new or existing treatment unit so that said underdrain anti-clogging device can be removed to be replaced with a new underdrain anti-clogging device because US’656 teaches it allows for replacement of structure should it malfunction and the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make pieces separable, it would be obvious to make the parts separable for that purpose, see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.
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.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ross US 4,627,923 (US’923).
Regarding claim 15, US’923 teaches a treatment unit for treating water or wastewater (a waste effluent filter, abstract), said treatment unit including: (a) a filter bed having one or more layers of filter media (filter bed FB, col 8, fig. 1); (b) an underdrain disposed below said filter bed (underdrain cavity C, see fig. 1, abstract, col. 8-9); (c) a compartment for housing said filter bed and said underdrain (tank 10, see fig. 1, col. 8-9); (d) a washing fluid delivery system for directing a washing fluid upwardly through the underdrain and said filter bed (valve V5 is opened causing the screen flushing system to operate. When this occurs, fluid is pumped through conduit 120 and valve V5 to inlet 78 of gullet 70. As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, this causes a rapid flow of liquid through orifices 90, col. 13 see fig. 1); and, (e) an underdrain anti-clogging device operably associated with the washing fluid delivery system, said underdrain anti-clogging device being configured to allow the washing fluid to pass through said underdrain anti-clogging device and into the underdrain while trapping impurities in the washing fluid to prevent the impurities in the washing fluid from entering the underdrain (elongated conduit 76 extends the length of gullet 70 and has an inlet or outlet connection or first end 78 and converging side walls 80, 82 which face generally toward parallel side walls 72, 74 of double gullet 70. Each wall 80, 82 has a plurality of longitudinally spaced openings 90, see fig. 1-5, the openings 90 would perform the functions of openings sized to allow a washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities in the washing fluid describe in applicants specification, see page 13-14 of applicants filed specification, claim 1 does not defined the type of impurity or define any particular structure that prevents clogging, therefore any general structure that provides any type of limited opening, would read on the claimed anti-clogging device. The examiner notes that allowing washing fluid to pass through while trapping impurities recites the intended use of the apparatus, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The apparatus of US’923 teaches an apparatus connected to a backwash fluid system that allows the backwash to pass through opening of the apparatus and therefore would be capable of performing the function. Since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use).
Regarding claim 16, US’923 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 15. US’923 further teaches wherein (a) the treatment unit is a water filter (as discussed above, a waste water effluent filter, abstract, col. 1) and the washing fluid is water (backwashing which is generally performed by flowing filtered effluent in a reverse direction through the filter bed, the examiner notes that the use of water recites the intended use of the apparatus); and, (b) the water filter includes a flume below the underdrain and said underdrain anti- clogging device includes an elongated member extending in said flume (elongated double gullet 70 is at the lower portion of underdrain cavity C, for accumulating filtered effluent after it has passed through the filter bed and into the underdrain cavity, includes elongated conduit 76 with openings 90, therefore the gullet 70 reads on a flume below the underdrain, see fig. 1-5, col. 8-9).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’923 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cochrane US 4,211,656 (US’656).
Regarding claims 17, US’923 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 16.
US’923 does not teach wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device includes a flange connected to said elongated member for supporting and detachably connecting said underdrain anti-clogging device to said water filter and a screening section that allows the washing fluid to pass through the screening section while trapping impurities in the washing fluid in said underdrain anti-clogging device.
US’656 teaches filter and reactor systems for treating liquids including a backwashing system and a filter bed where the backwash enters the filter bean through screens (abstract, col. 4-5, fig. 2-4). Each drain 90 has two cylindrical screen elements 92, which extend from the ends of a PVC T-shaped center 94. Screens 92 are approximately four inches long and are made of stainless steel with openings sufficiently small to retain media 80. T-shaped centers 94 are removably connected to pipes 88 to allow for replacement of a drain 90 should it malfunction (col. 3). Therefore, the elongated conduit 76 of US’923 correspond to the drain of US’656, and US’656 teaches that the apparatus of US’923 can be modified to make the conduit removable including piping/flange to allow for replacement of the drain should it malfunction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’923 to include wherein: (a) said underdrain anti-clogging device includes a flange connected to said elongated member for supporting and detachably connecting said underdrain anti-clogging device to said water filter and a screening section that allows the washing fluid to pass through the screening section while trapping impurities in the washing fluid in said underdrain anti-clogging device because US’656 teaches it allows for replacement of structure should it malfunction and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’923 as applied to claim 15-16 above, and further in view of Roberts US 2010/0282651 (US’651).
Regarding claims 18-19, US’923 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claims 15-16.
US’923 does not teach (a) a first pressure sensor for sensing pressure of a fluid exiting said underdrain anti- clogging device, said first pressure sensor being disposed in a flume of said treatment unit below said underdrain, with regard to claim 18 and further including: (a) a second pressure sensor for sensing pressure of a fluid supplied by the washing fluid delivery system prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 19.
US’651 teaches a method and apparatus for monitoring an underdrain in a filter system for filtering water or wastewater (abstract). The apparatus includes tow pressure gauges, one, gauge G, positioned at the bottom of the filter bed and one, sensor E. connected to supply line D to measure the pressure of the washing fluid. By obtaining pressure readings from pressure gauges E and G and flow rate from flow meter F, a differential pressure across underdrain 6 can be determined at a given fluid flow rate. This pressure differential can then be compared against a predetermined pressure differential at the same flow rate to determine if underdrain 6 is operating acceptably. Further, the differential pressure can be used without regard to flow rate to determine if the underdrain needs to be serviced in a manner similar to that described in connection with the filter system depicted in FIG. 1. It should be noted that in is this embodiment the second pressure gauge G permits the monitoring system to isolate the underdrain 6, i.e., the differential pressure obtained from the readings of gauges E and G is not affected by other components of the filter system, e.g., the filter bed 4 (para. 28-30, see fig. 2). The apparatus of US’923 includes a pressure gauge measuring the fluid flow into the underdrain as taught by US’651, which corresponds to the fluid flow out of the conduit 76 of US’923.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’923 to include (a) a first pressure sensor for sensing pressure of a fluid exiting said underdrain anti- clogging device, said first pressure sensor being disposed in a flume of said treatment unit below said underdrain, with regard to claim 18 and further including: (a) a second pressure sensor for sensing pressure of a fluid supplied by the washing fluid delivery system prior to entering said underdrain anti-clogging device, with regard to claim 19 because US’651 teaches it can be used to indicate if the underdrain needs to be serviced and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’923 in view of US’651 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cochrane US 4,211,656 (US’656).
Regarding claim 20, US’923 teaches the apparatus for preventing clogging according to claim 18.
The modified apparatus of US’923 does not teach wherein: (a) said first pressure sensor is connected to said underdrain anti-clogging device such that said first pressure sensor is removed when said underdrain anti-clogging device is removed.
US’656 teaches a filter and reactor systems for treating liquids including a backwashing system and a filter bed where the backwash enters the filter bean through screens (abstract, col. 4-5, fig. 2-4). Each drain 90 has two cylindrical screen elements 92, which extend from the ends of a PVC T-shaped center 94. Screens 92 are approximately four inches long and are made of stainless steel with openings sufficiently small to retain media 80. T-shaped centers 94 are removably connected to pipes 88 to allow for replacement of a drain 90 should it malfunction (col. 3). Therefore, the elongated conduit 76 of US’923 correspond to the drain of US’656, and US’656 teaches that the apparatus of US’923 can be modified to make the conduit and corresponding components removable to allow for replacement of the drain should it malfunction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’923 to include wherein: (a) said first pressure sensor is connected to said underdrain anti-clogging device such that said first pressure sensor is removed when said underdrain anti-clogging device is removed because US’656 teaches it allows for replacement of structure should it malfunction and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
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.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts US 2010/0282651 (US’651) in view of Geibel et al. US 2010/0237025 (US’025).
Regarding claim 21, US’651 teaches a method of monitoring, during a washing cycle, fluid pressure of a washing fluid prior to entering an underdrain of an existing or new treatment unit having an underdrain and a filter bed for treating water or wastewater (monitoring the underdrain of a filter system for filtering water or wastewater during operation of the filter that overcomes disadvantages, the underdrain directs and/or receives fluids during operation of various cycles of the filter system including the filtration cycle and the washing cycle, para. 3-6), said method comprising the steps of:(a) providing a pressure sensor in a flume or space below the underdrain to monitor a fluid pressure of a washing fluid during a washing cycle in which a washing fluid flows through the flume or space below the underdrain and into and through the underdrain (a flume 8 located below underdrain 6 that receives washing fluid during a washing cycle, pressure sensor E and/or I disposed below the underdrain or in the flume to measure pressure of the washing fluid, during a washing cycle, the washing liquid is introduced into flume 8 by supply line D. The washing liquid passes through the underdrain 6 which if working properly should evenly distribute the washing liquid throughout the filter bed 4 to ensure proper cleaning, see fig. 1 and 4, para. 26-29); (b) operably associating the pressure sensor with a controller (the pressure sensor E or I are connected to controller C, which receives pressure readings during the washing cycle via supply line D delivering washing fluid to flume 8 and evaluates those readings relative to system operation, see fig. 1-4, para. 28-30); and, (c) discontinuing the flow of the washing fluid to the flume or space below the underdrain when the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor exceeds a predetermined value to prevent damaging the underdrain (monitoring an underdrain in a filter system that permits data to be logged and used to determine when high pressure or high flow events occur during operation of a filter system thereby allowing potentially damaging event to be identified, when the pressure of the washing fluid is measured by sensor E and the flow rate of the fluid is measured by flow meter F these values can be compared to predetermined acceptable values to determine if the underdrain 6 is obstructed and can be used to determine if the underdrain may need to be shutdown for servicing, wherein the servicing of the underdrain would require discontinuing of the flow of the washing fluid (para. 3-6, 11-14 and 27-30).
US’651 does not teach a controller that controls the flow of the washing fluid to the flume or space below the underdrain.
US’025 teaches a controller operably connected to a pressure sensor to operate and regulate a cleaning liquid flow supplied to a flume or space below an underdrain during a cleaning operation. Pressure transmitters 102 positioned in the filter cell, including flume chamber 44 below underdrain system 26, which communicates pressure measurements to control device 100 (fig. 7, para, 69-70). Control device 100 is disclosed as translating sensed pressure into a corresponding cleaning liquid level and adjusting operation of pump 90 to regulate the flow rate of cleaning liquid supplied through delivery device conduit 59 into the flume chamber, thereby controlling the amount and rate of cleaning liquid introduced below the underdrain (fig. 7 para. 69). Controlling the flow rate and pressure of the cleaning fluid with the controller allows the cleaning liquid flow to be operated and adjusted to maintain desired operating conditions and prevent undesirable pressure states during cleaning (para. 69-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’651 to include a controller that controls the flow of the washing fluid to the flume or space below the underdrain because US’025 teaches controlling the flow of a cleaning liquid to an underdrain using a controller is well known for maintaining desired operating conditions and pressures and the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP2144.04 III.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: US-2710692, US-4152266 and US-4808024.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713