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The previous restriction requirement is withdrawn as claims 16-20 have been cancelled.
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 10 and 15 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 10 recites the limitation "the outer housing inlet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 10 is assumed to depend from claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the filter of claim 1 is configured as a fish screen. It appears the recitation of a fish screen is a recitation of an intended use and therefore it is unclear what further structural limitation applicant is reciting.
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) 1-2, 6 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krueger US 1,961,498.
Claim 1, Krueger teaches a filter for removing particles from a fluid, the filter comprising: a filter media (24) having a first side and an opposite second side, wherein fluid flows, in use, from the first side to the second side, a discharge port (7) provided at a first end of the filter media on the second side of the filter media, a plurality of vanes (19) provided to the second side of the filter media and configured to direct a flow of fluid from the filter media towards the discharge port, each vane having an upstream end adjacent the filter media and a downstream end, where the flow of fluid from the vanes discharges into an interior volume which is in fluid communication with the discharge port, wherein a cross sectional area of the interior volume decreases with increasing distance from the discharge port, and the vanes are configured such that the flow of fluid leaves the downstream end of the vanes in the same direction as a bulk flow of the fluid in the interior volume (fig. 1, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 6 and 13-15, Krueger further teaches the interior volume, being generally conically shaped, is shaped such that the interior volume is configured to provide a velocity of the fluid flowing through the interior volume is substantially constant (fig. 1 of Krueger) (see applicant’s teaching in paragraph 50 of the printed publication); an outer housing (5) on the first side of the filter media (fig. 1); the filter media comprises a wire gauze screen (woven mesh) (fig. 1, pg. 1, lines 60-67); the filter is configured to have a mean fluid flow adjacent to the filter media with a velocity component parallel to the filter media which is greater than a velocity component which is normal to the filter media, due to the shape of the filter media (pg. 1, lines 80-95); and the filter is capable of filtering fish from a fluid as the filter media is capable of removing particles (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulyabko et al. US 4,337,008.
Claim 1, Kulyabko teaches a filter for removing particles from a fluid, the filter comprising: a filter media (2) having a first side and an opposite second side, wherein fluid flows, in use, from the first side to the second side, a discharge port (the end of 1 where 5 is located) provided at a first end of the filter media on the second side of the filter media, a plurality of vanes (3) provided to the second side of the filter media and configured to direct a flow of fluid from the filter media towards the discharge port, each vane having an upstream end adjacent the filter media and a downstream end, where the flow of fluid from the vanes discharges into an interior volume (the space within 2) which is in fluid communication with the discharge port, wherein a cross sectional area of the interior volume decreases with increasing distance from the discharge port, and the vanes are configured such that the flow of fluid leaves the downstream and of the vanes in the same direction as a bulk flow of the fluid (the flow within pipe 1) in the interior volume (fig. 1, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 5 and 13-15, Kulyabko further teaches the interior volume is configured to provide a velocity of a fluid flow through the interior volume is substantially constant (col. 2, lines 63-68); the vanes are configured to accelerate the flow between the upstream end and the downstream end of each vane as the vanes converge toward one another (fig. 1); the filter media comprises perforated plate (col. 3, lines 35-40); the filter is configured to have a mean fluid flow adjacent to the filter media with a velocity component parallel to the filter media which is greater than a velocity component which is normal to the filter media, due to the shape of the filter media (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 24-45); and the filter is capable of filtering fish from a fluid (col. 1, lines 1-11).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulyabko et al. US 4,337,008.
Claim 6, Kulyabko teaches the filter of claim 1 but does not teach an outer housing on the first side of the filter media. Providing an outer housing on a first side of a filter such as Kulyabko is a common technique in the art to provide protection to the filter. Applicant did not dispute the examiner’s taking of official notice and therefore the official notice is taken as admitted prior art.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulyabko et al. US 4,337,008 in view of Stearns et al. US 4,003,836.
Kulyabko teaches as obvious the filter of claim 6 but does not teach an outer housing with an inlet and a bypass outlet.
Stearns teaches a filter comprising: a filter media (34) having a first and second side and a discharge port (20a) provided at a first end of the filter media on the second side of the filter media, an outer housing (16a) on the first side of the filter media, the outer housing having an inlet (10a) at one end of the filter and a bypass outlet (between 20a and 16a) at an opposite end of the outer housing, the inlet is provided at an opposite end of the filter to the discharge port, the outer housing bypass outlet is provided at the same end of the filter as the discharge port and a clearance distance between the outer housing and the first side of the filter media decreases with increasing distance from the inlet (fig. 2). Kulyabko teaches the filter may be placed in a moving stream of fluid to aid in washing off debris trapped by the filter media (col. 2, lines 40-65). Placing the filter of Kulyabko within a housing, such as that of Stearns, would provide for accelerated flow of fluid over the surface of the filter media to wash particles from the filter media while withdrawing some of the fluid through the filter media and allowing the rest of the fluid to continue downstream of the filter media (col. 1, lines 35-68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 112(b), claim 10 still depends from claim 6 and not claim 7. It appears applicant mistakenly changed the dependency of claim 11 and not claim 10 as intended.
Regarding the rejection of claim 15 under 112(b), applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a screen configured as a fish screen would require various structural limitations not require by other embodiments. Applicant has not provided any evidence or support for what the “various structural limitations” would actually be. The specification does not provide any direction as to what structural limitations would be required of a fish screen as opposed to an embodiment where the screen is not a fish screen. For these reasons, the precise metes and bounds of the claim are not clear and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the flow of fluid leaving the annular grooves (20) will be directed in an inward annular direction and the flow of fluid in the interior volume is in an axial direction. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope to the rejection. The cited vanes of Krueger are the vanes (19) and not the rings (21), between which are located the grooves (20). The apparatus of Krueger anticipates the claims as detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues nothing in Kulyabko suggests configuring the vanes such that the flow of fluid leaves the downstream end of the vanes in the same direction as a bulk flow of the fluid in the interior volume. As shown in the annotated figure of Kulyabko above, the prior art teaches the claimed limitation. The fluid can flow along the vane (3) until it reaches the downstream end of the vane, where the vane contacts the pipe (1). The fluid leaving the downstream end of the vane will have to flow axially once it leaves the vane and will flow axially along the pipe until it reaches a hole in the pipe (1). The bulk flow of fluid in the interior volume likewise flows in the axial direction and therefore, the apparatus of Kulyabko meets the limitations set forth in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites the filter further comprises a flow guide provided on a downstream side of the vanes, the flow guide defining a boundary of the interior volume, wherein a clearance distance between the downstream end of each respective vane and the flow guide decreases with increasing distance from the first end of the filter media. The closest prior art to Kulyabko teaches the filter of claim 1 but does not teach a flow guide. Flow guides that define a boundary of an interior volume within a filter where a clearance distance between a filter media and the flow guide decreases with increasing distance from the first end of the filter media is generally known in the art as a way to provide for even flow of fluid through the length of the filter media. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recited flow guide with the vanes as recited in claim 3 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is allowable as depending from claim 3.
Claim 11, the closest prior art to Kulyabko teaches the filter of claim 1 where the filter media is shaped as a surface of revolution, as it is conically shaped, but does not teach the filter is configured to rotate the filter media about its central axis nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is allowable as depending from claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779