DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/2/2023 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 32 was canceled. Claims 3-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17-25, 29-31, 33, 35, 37-41, and 44 were amended. Claims 1-31 and 33-44 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8, 10-11, 15-17, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lv et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0159228 (henceforth referred to as Lv).
As for claim 1, Lv teaches a filter unit (Fig. 1: part 1) for filtering microparticles from a feed liquid containing microparticles (paragraph [0049]; washing machine), the filter unit comprising: a filter chamber (Fig. 2: part 11) extending along an axis, and comprising opposing first end and second end walls and at least one sidewall extending therebetween, wherein both first and second end walls are coincident with the axis (Fig. 2), a filter cage (Fig. 2: part 12) contained within the filter chamber and configured to rotate about the axis, the filter cage comprising one or more than one filter media for filtering microparticles from the feed liquid; an inlet (Fig. 2: part 112) configured to pass feed liquid through the first end wall into the filter chamber; an outlet (Fig. 2: part 111) in the filter chamber for passage of filtered liquid out of the filter chamber; a drive shaft (Fig. 2: part 122) configured to drive rotation of the filter cage, the drive shaft extending from the first end wall of the filter chamber to the filter cage; wherein the second end wall (Figs. 1-2) is or comprises an opening therein and a removable lid, in a first configuration the opening is closed by the removable lid so that feed liquid cannot pass through the opening (operation mode), in a second configuration the lid is removed from the opening so that filtered microparticles are extractable from the filter chamber through the opening (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4; the whole filter with the microparticles are extractable).
As for claim 2, Lv further teaches that the filter unit is operable to extract filtered microparticles from the filter chamber when the filtered microparticles are in a dewatered state (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 3, Lv further teaches that the filter cage is removable from the filter chamber via the opening, and the filtered microparticles are extracted from the filter chamber by the removing the filter cage with the filtered microparticles thereon, optionally the filtered microparticles are removable through the opening in a direction parallel with the axis (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 4, Lv further teaches that the inlet is coaxial with the axis (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 5, Lv further teaches that the drive shaft is hollow, and the drive shaft passes through the inlet (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 6, Lv further teaches that the filter cage is substantially a cylinder, ellipsoid or a prism and wherein the filter cage extends parallel to the axis (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 7, Lv further teaches that the filter cage encloses an interior volume, and the inlet is arranged to deliver feed liquid to the interior volume of the filter cage (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 8, Lv further teaches that the drive shaft and the filter cage each comprise a mating surface, which permits the drive shaft to detachably connect to and drive rotation of the filter cage (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 10, Lv further teaches that the filter cage comprises a detachable cap, optionally the detachable cap is adjacent to the second end wall when the filter cage is in the filter chamber (Fig. 2; cap near reference numeral 12).
As for claim 11, Lv further teaches that the detachable cap comprises a mechanical coupling to the removable lid, optionally the mechanical coupling permits rotation between the detachable cap and removable lid (Fig. 2; cap near reference numeral 12).
As for claim 15, Lv further teaches that the filter unit comprises an extraction element to extract filtered microparticles out of the filter cage (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 16, Lv further teaches that the extraction element is configured to be withdrawn in the axial direction out of the filter cage (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 17, Lv further teaches that the extraction element comprises a mechanical coupling to the removable lid or to a detachable cap (paragraphs [0049]-[0054]; Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 20, Lv further teaches that the filter unit is operable as a centrifugal filter for filtering microparticles from a feed liquid containing micro particles (paragraphs [0070]-[0072]).
As for claim 21, Lv further teaches that the filter unit is operable to dewater filtered microparticles using centrifugal force (paragraphs [0070]-[0072]).
As for claim 22, Lv further teaches that in use, the filter unit is oriented such that the axis is parallel to the horizontal plane (Figs. 1-4).
As for claim 24, Lv further teaches that the filter chamber is cylindrical and comprises a cylindrical wall extending between the first end wall and the second end wall, optionally wherein the outlet is in the cylindrical wall, optionally where the outlet is tangential to the cylindrical wall (Figs. 1-4).
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 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 25 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0159228 (henceforth referred to as Lv).
Lv teaches the features as per above.
As for claim 25, Lv teaches a textile treatment apparatus (Fig. 10) comprising: a housing comprising a front face accessible by a user and a door; the filter unit (Fig. 10: part 1) located within the housing; a drum contained within the housing, the drum comprising an interior volume and an open end aligned with the door (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]; Fig. 10).
Lv differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the door is located within the front face of the housing. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
As for claim 29, Lv further teaches that the textile treatment apparatus is a washing machine (paragraph [0049]).
As for claim 30, Lv further teaches that the feed liquid is from the textile treatment apparatus (Fig. 10).
As for claim 31, Lv further teaches that the outlet of the filter unit is connected to a drain of the textile treatment apparatus (paragraph [0074]; Fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12-14, 18-19, 23, 26-28, and 33-44 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:
As for claims 9, 12-14, 18-19, and 23, Lv et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0159228, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach the particular limitations of these dependent claims. Furthermore, Examiner agrees that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter unit taught by Lv as claimed.
As for claims 26-28, Lv et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0159228, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach the particular limitations of these dependent claims. Furthermore, Examiner agrees that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the textile treatment apparatus taught by Lv as claimed.
As for claims 33-44, Lv et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0159228, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach supplying the feed liquid containing microparticles through the inlet at the first end wall; rotating the drive unit to rotate the filter cage; passing filtered feed liquid out of the outlet; and stopping the drive unit and supply of feed liquid to the inlet. Furthermore, Examiner agrees that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by Lv as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVON J SHAHINIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights