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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/23/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL document is not in English.
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 1-14 and 22 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 1 recites the limitation "the filter" in lines 5 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the at least one filter”.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Posavac et al. US 2004/0045887.
Claim 1, Posavac teaches a device comprising: a housing (1) having an inlet (20), a rotor (12) and at least one filter (28), wherein the rotor is capable of feeding liquid with foreign matter from a bath to the at least one filter via the inlet, wherein the inlet extends columnar vertically inside the housing over at least portion of a rear wall (in which 21 is located) of the housing opposite to the at least one filter and has outlets (21, 24) on the front side of the inlet and a chamber (2) for returning fluid to the bath is defined along at least one side wall of the housing and wherein the chamber is covered towards an interior of the housing by an internal filter (25) (fig. 2).
Claims 3-8, Posavac further teaches the internal filter comprises a metal plate in which filter openings are formed (par 30); the internal filter has holders (at 26) at its edge opposite the rear wall of the housing (fig. 2); the internal filter has engagement openings (27) (fig. 2); the internal filter is removably inserted into the housing (par 36); rails (at 23, 26) for guiding the internal filter are arranged on a ceiling of the housing (fig. 2); and the rails are arranged relative to the chamber such that the chamber is covered by the internal filter (fig. 2).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posavac et al. US 2004/0045887.
Posavac teaches the device of claim where the inlet has lateral outlets (24) in an upper area but does not teach the outlets extending to a ceiling of the housing. The recitation of the outlets extending to the ceiling is a recitation of a change in the relative dimensions of the openings. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posavac et al. US 2004/0045887 in view of Calvert GB 2593714.
Claim 9, Posavac teaches the device of claim 1 where the filter is covered by a front cover, the front cover has shielded outlet (27) but does not teach a hinged front cover. A hinged front cover is a well-known feature in the art as demonstrated by Calvert, cover (150) the cover having a shielded outlet (102) (fig. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hinged front cover because it provides for easy access to the filter housing (pg. 8, lines 25-29).
Claim(s) 10-14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posavac et al. US 2004/0045887 in view of Alkhatib WO 2019/171411.
Claims 10-14, Posavac teaches the device of claim 1 with a rotor with radial blades (14) connected to a with a ring (13), through an opening of which liquid may enter the rotor and being on a rotary shaft (11) but does not teach the recited rotor.
Alkhatib teaches a device comprising a housing, a filter and a rotor, the rotor is a double rotor, in which a closed disc is seated on a rotary shaft (6) and is connected via radial blades to a ring through an opening of which liquid may enter the rotor, radial projections project downward from the ring, the rotor is partially covered downwardly by an end plate which has an opening whose diameter is larger than the opening of the ring but smaller than the diameter of the ring, the end plate is followed by a laminated core which forms a cylindrical recess in which the rotor is configured to rotate and the cylindrical recess is interrupted toward an inlet by an extension through which liquid may pass from the rotor into the inlet (fig. 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rotor of Alkhatib because it minimizes filtration time (pg. 4).
Claim 22, Posavac further teaches the inlet extends along the rear wall from a floor of the housing to at least an intermediate ceiling (the slanted portion at the top of 20) of the housing (fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the structure (20) identified by the office as the recited inlet does not extend along the rear wall opposite to a filter as recited in claim 1. As detailed in the rejection above, the inlet (20) extends of a portion of a rear wall (the structure in which 21 is located). Applicant has not detailed how Posavac fails to teach the recited limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the outlet including a series of outlet openings distributed over its entire height) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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