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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaertig et al (US PGPub 2022/0314146 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Gaertig teaches separation tank devices which may include a filtration system with a prefilter device configured to strain contaminants from a liquid, which includes a strainer body (60), (61), (62) as a strainer bag, a strainer sleeve secured to the strainer body (68) as an upper perimeter which may be folded over (see figure) and secured via a fastener configured to pass through the strainer sleeve (64) as a tensioner which may be a bungee cord, elastic element, hook and loop fastener, or similar which is used to control the size and shape of the upper aperture [0062-0064, Fig. 7].
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the filter bag of Gaertig anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2, 4, and 12, Gaertig teaches embodiments in which the prefilters are secured to cylindrical sections (31) which may satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of a bucket and are secured via the upper lip [Fig. 8]; these may have openings at their bottom and may connect to further filters below them [0062].
With respect to claims 6 and 14, as above the fastener may include a cord such as a bungee cord, and the ends may be secured together e.g. with a hook-and-loop fastener or using a retainer (65) [0064].
With respect to claim 17, Gaertig teaches that components (including, as depicted in [Fig. 7], the sleeve portion) of the bag may be assembled by sewing, where such sewing or similar joining features may be covered and reinforced using seam tape (66) or similar material [0062]. Insertion of the fastener into such formed sleeve would be a necessary step to position it as shown, and as above Gaertig teaches securing the ends of the fastener together using suitable hook and loop structure or a retainer (65) or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5, 9-11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaertig et al in view of Zou et al (CN 204910952 U) and Li (CN 105903243 A).
With respect to claims 2-5, Gaertig teaches as above including that the prefilter may be positioned on a first container wall which is open at the bottom and may be positioned above a second filter in a second container, for serial filtration. Gaertig does not specify providing a valve between filters or to specific pore sizes such as 5 microns for the prefilter and smaller for the subsequent filters.
However, Zou teaches a two-stage series filtration system employing filter bags [0010-0011] with first stage course filtration and second stage fine filtration to achieve 5-micron and 1-micron ultra-precision filtration. The filters are secured in buckets or barrels (8), (10) provided in series. See also Li, which teaches filter hoppers for processing of lubricating oil [0002] employing a filter net bag (5-1) e.g. with a 0.5 micron filter net, and which includes a suitable set of valves (5-4) on the outlet to control or throttle flow [0021].
The selection of an appropriate pore size to effect the desired level of filtration e.g. 5-micron or 1-micron or 0.5-micron as suggested by Zou and Li would have been obvious engineering choices for one of ordinary skill in the art based on the material being filtered. Further, provision of valves to allow for control or throttling of flow as in at least Li would have been obvious features for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement, particularly when, in view of the guidance of Zou [0011], it is desirable to design a multi-stage system such that the flow rate and pressure are managed between the coarser and finer filter sections.
The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Zou and Li.
With respect to claims 9-11, 16, and 20, see the discussion above. In view of Zou and Li it would be recognized that selection of appropriate pore size to effect desired level of filtration, e.g. to 5-micron or 1-micron or 0.5-micron standards, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Gaertig teaches that the filter bag may be formed of a nylon mesh [0063] e.g. a food safe or food grade material.
Claims 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaertig et al in view of Iwig et al (US PGPub 2005/0229483 A1).
Gaertig teaches as above including that the fastener may include a bungee cord. Gaertig is silent to the specific use of a slipknot to form the fastener.
However, Iwig teaches a sock-type cover for agricultural use which acts as a filter to protect plants from undesirable contaminants such as pollen or insects while allowing light and air to pass therethrough [Abs]. The bottom opening of the sock after being placed over the plant may have an aperture which is adjusted e.g. to cinch the sock closed around the stem of the plant. This opening may be secured by a drawstring which is tied in a slip knot [0109, Fig. 1].
See MPEP 2143 I.B; a simple substitution of one known means of securing a drawstring (or similar cord material) for another, providing predictable results (i.e. known to be useful for adjusting the aperture of a sock-type mesh material functioning as a filter material), represents an obvious substitution for one of ordinary skill in the art. In view of Iwig it would be recognized that a slip knot is a known, predictable means of securing a drawstring or cord or the like to control the opening of a sock-type filter device and would have been obvious to employ in the device taught by Gaertig e.g. in place of the retainer (65) as a simple substitution of one known securing means for another.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gaertig et al.
Gaertig teaches that the filter bag may be any shape such as an open rectangular prism, open triangular prism, etc., but that the preferred embodiment is generally cylindrical with a circular bottom region [0062]. As best understood, at minimum this bottom section would represent the claimed shape and would inherently form a pseudo-half-sphere when loaded.
Alternatively, Gaertig already teaches that the bag may be formed in any desired shape and, in general, changes in shape represent obvious engineering choices for those of ordinary skill in the art; see MPEP 2144.04 IV.B. As such, the device of Gaertig anticipates or at minimum renders obvious the claimed filter structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaertig et al in view of Kaufman (US PGPub 2023/0271124 A1).
See the discussion of claim 12 above; Gaertig teaches serial embodiments in which a first prefilter is secured on a first container segment and placed above a second filter in a second segment, open at the bottom to allow flow to pass from prefilter to filter and so on.
If the structure taught by Gaertig is not considered sufficiently consistent with a “bucket,” see Kaufman; bag-type filter structure, including those with collars and fasteners, can be usefully employed in containers that are simpler, more conventional bucket-type structures [Abs, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, 0006], and it would have been obvious to employ the device of Gaertig in such a configuration e.g. for lower cost or temporary operations using more conventional, cheaper structures. In view of Gaertig, providing a suitable lower outlet opening and passing filtrate to another, finer filter for serial filtration would nevertheless have been obvious, regardless of the type of container.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaertig et al in view of Matson (US PGPub 2012/0304860 A1).
Gaertig teaches as above and teaches generally that components may be sewn together and reinforced with suitable strips, and illustrates such a strip/sewline for e.g. formation of the collar into which the faster is threaded. Gaertig is silent to specific folds or sewing arrangements.
However, Matson teaches a dust screen which takes the form of a similar collared bag filter [Fig. 1] and teaches that the aperture may be secured using an elastic band which is secured in a hem which is sewn into the open end [Abs, 0012, 0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a collar in the device of Gaertig using a similar hem i.e. by folding the bag material in suitable manners to secure the distal ends and longitudinally to form a suitable loop around the rim of the material, such that the claimed sewing steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of forming a collar on a generally cylindrically-configured device such as the bags of Gaertig or Matson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777