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 .
Response to Amendment
Objections to drawings and claims are obviated by the amendment filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kopf’s cited passage (col. 2, lines 53-60) is directed to prior art relevant to Kopf’s invention and “does not teach a liquid chamber or the position of the liquid distributor between a liquid and a filter chamber”. The examiner agrees. However, first, it should be noted that the primary reference to GB discloses a liquid filter chamber and a liquid distributor between a liquid and the filter chamber. Second, even though the cited passage in Kopf is directed to prior art, it should be recognized that Kopf, the prior art, and GB are all directed to same field of endeavor, i.e., a filter. Therefore, the reliance of relevant art to Kopf’s invention is applicable and the combination of Gb and Kopf would be prima facie obvious.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2192603 (hereinafter “GB”) in view of US 4956085 to Kopf (hereinafter “Kopf”).
GB is directed to a filtering equipment containing a filter press and a method for using said filter equipment for removing impurities from liquids using an alluvial filtration layers (page 1, lines 104-117). The following portion of Fig. 4 (one unit of the filtration system) from the GB reference is relied upon. The relevant and corresponding description of Fig. 4 is on page 2, lines 108-124; page 3, lines 37-60 and lines 120-126.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 7, GB discloses:
a filter chamber (25) comprising a first inlet (23);
a liquid chamber (44) comprising a second inlet (45);
a liquid distributor element (27) having a first and a second opposing surfaces, the first surface forming part of the filter chamber and the second surface forming part of the liquid chamber; and
a flow system (19), the filter chamber additionally having a surface potion formed by a filter element (30), the flow system which delivers a filter forming suspension (29), comprising the suspension, to the filter chamber and a liquid to the liquid chamber. GB fails to disclose the claimed liquid distributor element comprising a plurality of through-going channels and to distribute the same amount of liquid per unit area of the second surface.
Kopf is directed to cross-flow filter wherein filter plates have been constructed with baffle elements defining discrete flow channels (equivalent to claimed liquid distributor comprising a plurality of through-going channels) with an intent of achieving a more uniform distribution of solids-containing influent liquid across the full areal extent of filter elements in the flow channels of the filter (col. 2, lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have modified GB’s liquid distributor by employing a baffle element having discrete flow channels as taught by Kopf to distribute liquid into the filter chamber because it would result in uniform distribution of solids-containing influent liquid (suspension) across the filter element. Note that a uniform distribution of suspension is equivalent to claimed liquid distribution into the filter chamber with the same amount of liquid per unit area of the second surface.
With respect to claims 2 and 8, GB discloses introducing preliminarily clarified beer (claimed filter forming suspension) from a first flow channel (19) extending to the first inlet (23) and passing liquid from second flow channel (39) extending to the second inlet (43).
With respect to claim 3 and 9, GB discloses a first flow channel (19) and an inlet valve (41). One skilled in the art understands the purpose of an inlet valve is to allow or stop the flow of a liquid entering the liquid chamber.
With respect to claim 4, GB discloses the liquid chamber (44) is positioned before the liquid distributor (27), the liquid distributor (27) is positioned before the filter chamber (25), and the filter chamber (25) positioned before the filter element (30).
With respect to claims 5 and 11, GB illustrates in Fig. 4 a filter chamber (44) has a flat shape having a height and a width but no depth of the filter chamber is shown in the figure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have determined optimum dimensions of the filter chamber, through routine experimentation, based on the dimensions of the area in which the system is desired to be installed and operated.
With respect to claims 6 and 12, the entire Figure 4 of GB, as shown below, shows 3 filter units which reads on the claimed plurality of filter units. Each filter unit is as discussed in the preceding rejection of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
842
1068
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, GB discloses liquid passing through liquid chamber (44) wherein the liquid distributed by a distributor 27 into the filter chamber (25), and through the filter element (page 3, lines 37-60).
With respect to claim 13, GB discloses preparing the filter forming suspension by performing a preliminary clarification of a liquid (page 1, lines 37-47).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, GB discloses filtering preliminarily clarified liquid to remove residual impurities (page 1, lines 48-73) and rinsing the filter equipment to remove the filter cake/alluviated layers (page3, lines 37-39).
With respect to claim 16 directed to the filter chamber being at least 95% filled by the filtering particles, the apparatus and method disclosed by GB is similar to the claimed apparatus and process. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent any evidence to the contrary, the process of GB would result in the filter chamber being at least 95% filled by the filtering particles as claimed.
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 IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights