DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has canceled the non-elected claims. Also, new claims 41-48 are joined with the elected invention and have also been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
In paragraph 0037, line 2, “Figure 4” should be “Figure 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 5 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
Since it is the second output 23 (coupled to the inner portion of the shear flow tube) that is the concentrated outlet, claiming that the first output 22 is coupled to the waste path in each of claims 5 and 45 is unclear and seems to mis-describe the invention. The first output is for clarified water and is not sent to waste. See paragraph 0033 of the specification.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pollack (U.S. 2009/0134090 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Pollack teaches a shear clarification device comprising:
an input (left side of tube 104) to the shear clarification device 100 receives water from a water consuming appliance1;
a shear flow tube 104 configured to place forces on particles in a water flow from the input toward an outer portion of the shear flow tube (Applicant states in paragraph 0029 that shear forces are caused by the adjacent layers of the fluid that move with different velocities with respect to each other; Pollack teaches in paragraph 0029 that velocities are slower that the center microsphere containing zone);
a first output coupled to the outer portion of the shear flow tube (the annular zone of the differential extractor 110 and the tube portion labeled “Dilute”); and
a second output coupled to an inner portion of the shear flow tube (this is for the concentrated flow 112).
As for claims 2 and 4, either output can be directed to another treatment device or recycled back to the input [0031].
As for claim 5, the concentrated output is directed to a waste path (see figure 12).
As for claim 6, the outputs have a cylindrical cross section (easily deduced from the drawings).
As for claim 7, the first output has a cone shaped path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries that are applied 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.
Claims 3, 8, and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollack in view of WO 94/16157, hereinafter ‘157.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pollack doesn’t specify a greywater system comprising a first stage configured to remove dense materials before the shear clarification stage. However, ‘157 teaches a greywater system comprising a first stage settling tank (9) for removing dense contaminants and then a downstream particle removing stage (hydrocyclone 4) producing two streams, a second output 37 of which is delivered to a greywater tank 7 [as in claims 3, 8, 41, 43 and 48].
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the first stage shear clarification stage settling tank and greywater tank of ‘157 in the invention of Pollack since such would further perfect Pollack’s goal of a use in a system for treating greywater from e.g. a shower [0003, 0070].
Upon modification, the limitations of claims 42 and 44-47 (which mimic claims 2 and 4-7 anticipated by Pollack) are also made obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 Receiving water from a water consuming appliance is considered an intended use of the device that fails to further structurally define the apparatus beyond the elements listed in the body of the claim. However, Pollack teaches his device can be used to clarify water from a shower, e.g. paragraph 0070.