DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-6, 8, 41-46 and 48-50 are pending.
Claims 1 and 41 are amended.
Claims 7 and 47 are canceled.
Claims 49 and 50 are new.
This Action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Pollack does not teach “the first output includes a cone shaped path. This argument is not persuasive because Pollack teaches that the first output (combination of the differential extractor 110 and Dilute tube) includes a cone shaped path (see fig. 1, Annotated below). The claims do not require the entire first output to be a cone shaped path or limit which portion of the output is cone shaped or how the cone shape is created, therefore any cone shape within the first output meets this limitation.
Drawing objection withdrawn in view of arguments.
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 49-50 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.
Regarding Claim 49:
The claim states “an input…receives water…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is a method limitation (receives) within a device claim. Claims directed to both an apparatus and a method are indefinite because it creates confusion on where direct infringement would occur. Specifically, it is not clear if water is a required part of the structure or not. Claim 50 is indefitne because it depends from claim 49.
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, 4-6, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pollack (U.S. 2009/0134090 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
571
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),
Wherein the first output includes a cone shaped path (see fig. 1 annotated above).
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 49, 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 appliance2;
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),
wherein the first output includes one or more tubes coupled to the outer portion of the shear flow tube (Dilute tube is coupled to the outer portion of the shear flow tube).
As for claim 50, the first output includes a cone shaped path (see fig. 1, annotated above)
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, 41-46 and 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
As for claim 41, 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 appliance3;
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),
wherein the first output includes a cone shaped path (see fig. 1 annotated above).
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 44-46 (which mimic claims 2 and 4-7 anticipated by Pollack) are also made obvious.
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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 8/24/2026
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.
2 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.
3 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.
Prosecution Insights