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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 22-40 are currently pending
Claim 41 is currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-21 are currently canceled
Claims 22-40 are new
Claims 22-40 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/08/2023 and 12/13/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 22-40 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted inventions are not independent inventions and that examination of both claimed invention together would not present a serious burden on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41 has been adequately addressed in MPEP §802.01. Therein, it is stated that the legislative intent was to maintain the substantive law on the subject of restriction practice prior to enactment of 35 USC 121. Such practice permitted restriction between distinct, albeit dependent inventions. If the intent had been otherwise, then only the term “independent” would have been used. Thus, restriction between the distinct inventions set forth in this application is proper even though these inventions are clearly related.
With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “having” and instead should include a colon to further recite “having:” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “in the vertical direction” and instead should state “in a vertical direction” to avoid any antecedent issues. ADDITIONALLY, line 10 states “for discharging fluid out” and instead should state “for discharging the fluid out” for further clarity. ALSO, line 16 states “horizontal plane and” and instead should include a comma to further recite “horizontal plane, and” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the fins” and instead should state “the several fins” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “on the other side” and instead should state “on another side” to avoid any antecedent issues. FURTHERMORE, line 6 states “Wherein” and instead should state “wherein” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the same height” and instead should state “a same height” to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “a gas-tight manner and” and instead should include a comma to further recite “a gas-tight manner, and” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-40 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 22 recites the limitation "which inlet” on line 6. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an inlet’ as recited on line 5 of claim 22, or a different inlet? FURTHERMORE, claim 22 recites the limitation “which outlet” on line 10. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an outlet’ as recited on line 10 of claim 22, or a different outlet? ADDITIONALLY, claim 22 recites the limitation “in a horizontal plane” on line 16. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a horizontal plane’ as recited on line 8 of claim 22, or a different horizontal plane? Claims 23-40 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 22.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the flow direction” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the axial direction” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 28 recites the limitation “fins have even flow guiding surfaces, normals of which…” on lines 1-2. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to recite?
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the extension…in the axial direction” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the ratio of the smallest cross-sectional area of the inlet to the smallest cross-sectional area” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the opening” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the upper…the upper…the height” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the outflow side” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 40 recites the limitation “above a base” on line 4. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a base’ as recited on line 2 of claim 22, or a different base?
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 22-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al. (U.S. 2007/0267342 A1) (hereinafter “Cobb”).
Regarding Claim 22:
Cobb teaches a sludge separator (see FIGS. 1-2, a separation system 10) (see paragraphs 2, 9-10, 13 and 32-36) having:
a sedimentation tank (see FIGS. 1-2, a tank 12) that has a side wall and a base (see FIGS. 1-2, a bottom 26 and interior sidewalls 28) (see paragraphs 32-36), wherein the sedimentation tank is divided in the vertical direction into a lower sedimentation region, an intermediate region and an upper fluid exchange region (see FIGS. 1-2, tank 12 is divided in the vertical direction into multiple regions including an upper region, an intermediate region and a lower region) (see paragraphs 32-36),
an inlet (see FIGS. 1-2, tank inlet 14) for supplying a fluid carrying solid particles (see FIGS. 1-2, untreated liquid 42) into the sedimentation tank (see paragraphs 32-36), which inlet has an end section having an inlet opening (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-36),
wherein the inlet opening is arranged in the upper fluid exchange region in the vertical direction and opens into the sedimentation tank in a horizontal plane in a peripheral region of the sedimentation tank (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18 is arranged in the upper region and opens into the tank in a horizontal plane in a peripheral region of the tank) (see paragraphs 32-36), and
an outlet for discharging fluid out of the sedimentation tank (see FIGS. 1-2, tank outlet 16) (see paragraphs 32-36), which outlet has an outlet opening which is arranged in the upper fluid exchange region in the vertical direction (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36),
wherein the end section is orientated such that the supplied fluid flows into the sedimentation tank tangentially (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-35) (see paragraphs 36 and 39 further discussing tangential flow patterns),
wherein the outlet opening is arranged in a central region of the sedimentation tank in a horizontal plane (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42), and
wherein a fin is arranged in the end section of the inlet (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘a fin’ to include a weir capable of diverting/disrupting a flow) (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Although Cobb teaches a fin (weir 40), Cobb does not explicitly teach wherein several fins are arranged in the end section of the inlet, as recited in new, independent claim 22.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins arranged in the end section of the inlet for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 23:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the end section of the inlet is straight (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 24:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the end section of the inlet is orientated substantially tangentially in relation to the sedimentation tank (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-35) (see paragraphs 36 and 39 further discussing tangential flow patterns).
Regarding Claim 25:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the end section of the inlet is orientated substantially horizontally (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 26:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the fins are orientated parallel to each other (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins oriented parallel to each other and arranged in the end section of the inlet for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 27:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the fins are each arranged in the end section in the flow direction of the fluid to be supplied (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins, each arranged in the end section in the flow direction of the fluid to be supplied, for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 28:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the fins have even flow guiding surfaces, normals of which are each orientated orthogonally to the axial direction of the end section (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins having even flow guiding surfaces and oriented orthogonally to the end section for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 29:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the fins divide the end section into several separate flow channels in a cross-section (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins dividing the end section into several separate flow channels in a cross-section for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 30:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the fins are vertically orientated (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins vertically oriented for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 31:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the extension of the fins in the axial direction of the end section is larger than in a cross-sectional direction of the end section (see FIG. 2, a weir 40) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the sludge separator system of Cobb to include several fins oriented for optimization purposes and to increase/decrease a flow speed and divert a flow pattern accordingly (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Duplication of Parts) (see paragraphs 11, 32-36 and 45).
Regarding Claim 32:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the sludge separator only has the inlet opening (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 33:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the ratio of the smallest cross-sectional area of the inlet to the smallest cross-sectional area of the outlet is in a range of 2 to 10, in particular in a range of 4 to 8 (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 34:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the outlet opening is orientated upwards (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42).
Regarding Claim 35:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the outlet opening is orientated downwards (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42).
Regarding Claim 36:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the outlet has an overflow opening which is arranged above the outlet opening (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42).
Regarding Claim 37:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 36, wherein the outlet has a vertically orientated first outlet pipe piece which has the outlet opening formed on one side and which merges on the other side into a horizontally orientated second outlet pipe piece, which in turn opens into a third outlet pipe piece which has a larger cross section (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42), and
wherein the third outlet pipe piece has a dam having an overflow edge and the overflow opening above the opening of the second outlet pipe piece (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42).
Regarding Claim 38:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the upper fluid exchange region occupies at most the upper 0% to 30%, in particular the upper 0% to 10%, of the height of the sedimentation tank in the vertical direction (see FIGS. 1-2, tank 12 is divided in the vertical direction into multiple regions including an upper region, an intermediate region and a lower region) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 39:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the inlet opening is arranged at approximately the same height as the outlet opening (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 18 and conduit 20) (see paragraphs 32-36).
Regarding Claim 40:
Cobb teaches the sludge separator according to claim 22, wherein the outlet comprises a suction hose which is connected with the outlet opening in a gas-tight manner (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42), and
wherein the suction hose opens on the outflow side into a discharge opening which is arranged underneath the outlet opening and above a base of the sedimentation tank (see FIGS. 1-2, outlet port 33 and storage chamber outlet 32 arranged in a central region of the tank in a horizontal plane) (see FIGS. 1-2, conduit 20 arranged in the upper region in the vertical direction) (see paragraphs 32-36 and 41-42).
Other References Considered
Stark et al. (U.S. 2005/0077248 A1) (hereinafter “Stark”) teaches a stormwater treatment system for eliminating solid debris.
DeMarco (U.S. 5,180,407) teaches a vacuum loader with vaned and short tangential separator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773