DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-18 and 20 are rejected.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 10-12 and 19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13-18 and 20 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberly et al. (US 2017/0348619) [hereinafter Eberly].
With respect to claim 1, Eberly discloses a filtering apparatus 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a container 12 (filter drum) including a fluid inlet 22 configured to be fluidly connected to a fluid entrance pipe of a rainwater collection system (see paragraphs 0045 and 0048, apparatus 10 can be part of a continuous and progressive filtering system for rainwater), as shown in Fig. 1, and a fluid outlet 24, as shown in Fig. 1, configured to be fluidly connected to a cistern tank (see paragraphs 0038 and 0048-0049); and a filter assembly disposed in the filter drum 12 as shown in Fig. 1, the filter assembly including: a platform 14 (filter support plate) suspended in the filter drum 12 such that the filter support plate 14 spans across and substantially covers a width of the filter drum 12 to separate the filter drum 12 into an upper chamber having the fluid inlet 22 and a lower chamber having the fluid outlet 24, as shown in Fig. 1, a plurality of spaced-apart holes 30 (apertures) disposed in the filter support plate 14, as shown in Figs. 1-2, and a plurality of filter bags 18 (filter socks) for filtering a rainwater as it flows through the fluid inlet 22 to the fluid outlet 24, as shown in Fig. 1, each of the plurality of filter socks 18 positionable in one of the plurality of spaced apart apertures 30 such that each filter sock 18 extends downward from the filter support plate 14 into the lower chamber, as shown in Fig. 1, and each of the plurality of filter socks 18 being configured to retain particulates (see paragraph 0048).
Eberly lacks each of the plurality of filter socks being configured to retain particulates that are about 200 microns or larger while permitting particulates that are smaller than 200 microns to flow with the filtered rainwater through the plurality of filter socks to the fluid outlet. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order achieve a desired filtration, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired porosity for the filter material according to a desired application. Furthermore, Eberly teaches that the filter socks 18 collect large amount of debris and heavy particulate from rainwater (see paragraphs 0048-0049), which is the same function of applicant’s filter socks, and therefore, the claimed porosity would be obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Eberly discloses wherein the filter support plate 14 is sealed to an interior sidewall of the filter drum 12 (see paragraph 0037).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Eberly lacks the interior sidewall having an inward protruding portion and the filter support plate being sealed to the inward protruding portion. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to further support the plate and since the courts have held that a change in shape 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 was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 4, Eberly discloses wherein the plurality of filter socks 18 are configured to be removably inserted into the spaced-apart apertures 30 of the filter support plate 14, as shown in Fig. 1 (see paragraph 0025).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Eberly discloses wherein the filter assembly further includes a retainer plate 36 (hold down plate) configured to be positioned over the filter support plate 14 to assist in maintaining the plurality of filter socks 18 in the plurality of spaced apart apertures 30, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Eberly discloses wherein the hold down plate 36 includes a plurality of spaced-apart apertures positioned and configured to be vertically aligned with the plurality of spaced-apart apertures 30 of the filter support plate 14 when the hold down plate 36 is positioned over the filter support plate 14, as shown in Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 8, Eberly discloses wherein each of the plurality of filter socks 18 include a flange (lip) (see paragraph 0046) extending radially from a top end of the filter sock 18 such that the lip is disposed between the hold down plate 36 and the filter support plate 14 when the hold down plate 36 is positioned over the filter support plate 14 (see paragraph 0046).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Eberly lacks wherein the hold down plate includes a plurality of grooves for receiving fasteners, the grooves including a narrow portion for removably fastening the hold down plate to the filter support plate when the fasteners are tightened and a wider portion for removing the hold down plate from the filter support plate when the fasteners are loosened. However, Eberly teaches the hold down plate 36 engaged to the filter support plate 14, as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a connection using grooves and fasteners, as claimed by applicant, in order to provide a more secure connection. Furthermore, the specific shape of the grooves, i.e., the grooves including a narrow portion and a wider portion, as claimed by applicant, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape 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 was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 13, Eberly a filtering apparatus 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: selecting a prefilter drum 12, as shown in Fig. 1; forming a fluid inlet 22 and a fluid outlet 24 in the prefilter drum 12, as shown in Fig. 1; providing a filter support plate 14 having a plurality of spaced-apart apertures 30, as shown in Fig. 1; sealing the filter support plate 14 to an interior sidewall of the filter drum 12 (see paragraph 0037) such that the filter support plate 14 spans across and substantially covers a width of the filter drum 12 to separate the filter drum 12 into an upper chamber having the fluid inlet 22 and a lower chamber having the fluid outlet 24, as shown in Fig. 1; positioning filter socks 18 in each of the plurality of spaced apart-apertures 30 such that the filter socks 18 extend downward from the filter support plate 14 into the lower chamber, as shown in Fig. 1, the filter socks 18 for filtering rainwater as it flows through the fluid inlet 22 to the fluid outlet 24, as shown in Fig. 1; fluidly connecting the fluid inlet 22 to a fluid entrance pipe of a rainwater collection system (see paragraphs 0045 and 0048, apparatus 10 can be part of a continuous and progressive filtering system for rainwater); and fluidly connecting the fluid outlet 24 to a cistern tank (see paragraphs 0038 and 0048-0049).
Eberly lacks the drum having a volume that ranges from about 14 gallons to about 165 gallons. However, the specific volume claimed by applicant, i.e., from about 14 gallons to about 165 gallons, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where 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 a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
With respect to claim 15, Eberly lacks wherein the filter socks are configured to retain particulates that are about 200 microns or larger. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order achieve a desired filtration, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired porosity for the filter material according to a desired application. Furthermore, Eberly teaches that the filter socks 18 collect large amount of debris and heavy particulate from rainwater (see paragraphs 0048-0049), which is the same function of applicant’s filter socks, and therefore, the claimed porosity would be obvious.
With respect to claim 20, Eberly lacks wherein the filter socks are configured to retain particulates that are about 200 microns or larger while permitting particulates that are smaller than 200 microns to flow with the filtered rainwater through the filter socks. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order achieve a desired filtration, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired porosity for the filter material according to a desired application. Furthermore, Eberly teaches that the filter socks 18 collect large amount of debris and heavy particulate from rainwater (see paragraphs 0048-0049), which is the same function of applicant’s filter socks, and therefore, the claimed porosity would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13-18 and 20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument that since Marvel is incapable of performing the intended use of applicant’s invention i.e., removing larger debris from rainwater, then it lacks the new limitations added to claims 1 and 13 regarding the porosity of the filter socks: Eberly teaches a filtering apparatus for removing larger debris from rainwater (see paragraphs 0048-0049). Eberly lacks each of the plurality of filter socks being configured to retain particulates that are about 200 microns or larger while permitting particulates that are smaller than 200 microns to flow with the filtered rainwater through the plurality of filter socks to the fluid outlet. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order achieve a desired filtration, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired porosity for the filter material according to a desired application. Furthermore, Eberly teaches that the filter socks 18 collect large amount of debris and heavy particulate from rainwater (see paragraphs 0048-0049), which is the same function of applicant’s filter socks, and therefore, the claimed porosity would be obvious.
Conclusion
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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773