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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on April 21, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 19 has been cancelled. New claims 20-21 have been added. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered. It is noted that claim 1, an independent claim from which all dependent claims depend, has been amended to recite “wherein the sediment bowl includes a sump which is angularly inclined relative to a plane which is perpendicular to a central vertical longitudinal axis of the multi-cyclone sediment filter, and a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port” in the context of a multi-cyclone sediment filter as claimed.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 as amended and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Pesetsky et al. (US 2013/0319918 A1) and Tandon (US 2013/0118960 A1), since the cited references do not teach the amended features of, in the context of a multi-cyclone sediment filter, “the sediment bowl includes a sump which is angularly inclined relative to a plane which is perpendicular to a central vertical longitudinal axis of the multi-cyclone sediment filter, and a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port”. See Remarks, page 5-7.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to claims 1-18 and 20-21 are presented, in view of the previously presented prior art(s), Pesetsky et al. (US 2013/0319918 A1) and Tandon (US 2013/0118960 A1), and a newly found reference Bier (US 3,989,628) as presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesetsky et al. (US 2013/0319918 A1, hereinafter “Pesetsky”), in view of Tandon (US 2013/0118960 A1) and Bier (US 3,989,628).
In regard to claim 1, Pesetsky discloses a multi-cyclone sediment filter (Abstract) comprising (Figs. 1-4; paragraphs [0033]-[0043]):
(i) a sediment bowl for collecting sediment (30, Fig. 1, a particle collection chamber);
(ii) a cyclone housing (10, Figs. 1-2) disposed above and sealingly connected to said sediment bowl (30, Fig. 1);
(iii) a cyclone cartridge (12, Fig. 2) disposed in said cyclone housing (10, Fig. 2), said cyclone cartridge including:
a plurality of conically shaped fluid cyclones (12, 18, Fig. 2), each having a small opening at a lower end and larger opening at an upper end,
a fluid inlet (20, 72, Fig. 1) for introducing fluid into said cyclone housing and for passage through said cyclone cartridge;
a diffuser plate (70, 71, Fig. 4) sealingly connected to said cyclone cartridge and said cyclone housing, said diffuser plate including a plurality of diffuser tubes (80, Figs. 1 and 4), each diffuser tube extending downwardly into an upper open portion of one of said fluid cyclones (Figs. 1-4),
wherein the sediment bowl includes (30, Fig. 1) a sump which is angularly inclined relative to a plane which is perpendicular to a central vertical longitudinal axis of the multi-cyclone sediment filter (in Fig. 1 it is noted that sump slopes inwardly), and a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump (36, 38, Fig. 1).
But Pesetsky does not explicitly disclose the feature of “a central upwardly extending diverter cone for directing fluid over said diverter cone up and away from said diffuser plate” in the diffuser plate design.
However, Tandon discloses a multi-cyclone sediment filter for filtering water and oil, comprising (Figs. 1-7; paragraphs [0130]-[0150]; claim 1):
(i) a lower shell for collecting sediment;
(ii) an upper shell disposed above and connected to said lower shell to create a filter housing, said upper shell including a fluid outlet;
(iii) a cyclone holder disposed in said filter housing, said cyclone holder including a plurality of conically shaped fluid cyclones, each having a small opening at a lower end and larger opening at an upper end, and further including a plurality of fluid flow paths to said plurality of fluid cyclones;
(iv) a fluid inlet disposed in said filter housing for introducing water or oil into said filter housing and for passage through said plurality of fluid cyclones;
(v) a fluid outlet in fluid communication with said filter housing for discharging water or oil from said filter housing; and
(vi) a manifold plate disposed above said cyclone holder, said manifold plate including a plurality of diffuser tubes, each of which extends downwardly into an opening at the upper end of one of said fluid cyclones in said plurality of fluid cyclones, and a diverter cone for directing water or oil into said fluid cyclones. Tandon discloses the feature of a center hole 550 in the diffuser plate accommodates a diverter cone 560 which directs fluid flowing over it up and away from the diffuser plate (paragraph [0138]).
It is noted that both the Pesetsky and Tandon references direct a multi-cyclone sediment filter for filtering sediment in fluid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Pesetsky, to provide the features of “a central upwardly extending diverter cone for directing fluid over said diverter cone up and away from said diffuser plate” in the diffuser plate design as taught by Tandon, because the recited features of “a central upwardly extending diverter cone for directing fluid over said diverter cone up and away from said diffuser plate” in the diffuser plate design is considered a known, effective feature for delivering fluid to diffuser plate evenly and effectively as taught by Tandon (Figs. 2A, 3, 4; paragraph [0138]).
Regarding the feature of “a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port”, Pesetsky discloses a central axis of the sump is parallel to the central vertical longitudinal axis of the multi-cyclone sediment filter (Fig. 1), and Tandon discloses a central axis of the sump is perpendicular to the central vertical longitudinal axis of the multi-cyclone sediment filter (Fig. 1).
But Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, does not explicitly disclose the feature of “a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port”.
However, Bier discloses an apparatus for degritting and removing fibers from a waste activated sludge using multi cyclones (col. 1, lines 1-5; Fig. 1). Bier discloses the feature of an interchange of flows occurs during operation with a heavy grit fraction continuously moving into the manifold conduit 25, Fig. 1 (i.e., an outlet sump) that is in fluid communication with multiple cyclones (30, 31, 32, Fig. 1) (col. 2, lines 50-55). Bier discloses the underflow manifold may be inclined from the horizontal to provide gravity flow of the grit-containing effluent and the constricted outlet of the underflow manifold limits the amount of underflow discharge (col. 1, lines 58-62).
It is noted that all the Pesetsky, Tandon and Bier references direct a multi-cyclone sediment filter for filtering sediment in fluid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, to provide the features of “a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port” as taught by Bier, because the recited features of “a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port” is considered a known, effective feature for delivering sump outlet using gravity force as taught by Bier (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 58-62; col. 2, lines 50-55).
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Tandon discloses the cyclone cartridge includes 16 cyclones (Fig. 2A), the use of 12 cyclones would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize multi-cyclone sediment filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sediment filtering operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the cyclone cartridge bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the fluid feedstock as well as the nature of the filtered fluid end-products.
In regard to claim 4, Pesetsky discloses each cyclone has a truncated conical body which decreases in cross-section area from an upper region of the cyclone cartridge toward a lower region of the cyclone cartridge, wherein a narrow end of each cyclone terminates at a tubular outlet (18, 14, 12, 16, Fig. 1; Fig. 3).
In regard to claims 5-8, as set forth above, Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, fully addresses the recited multi-cyclone sediment filter as claimed.
With respect to the specific geometrical dimension feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm”, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, does not expressly disclose the claimed feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm”; however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm” as claimed since the multi-cyclone sediment filter taught by Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, is considered fully functional and optimal in design/manufacturing purposes. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 9, Pesetsky discloses each cyclone has a truncated conical body which decreases in cross-section area from an upper region of the cyclone cartridge toward a lower region of the cyclone cartridge, wherein a narrow end of each cyclone terminates at a tubular outlet (18, 14, 12, 16, Fig. 1; Fig. 3).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, as set forth above, Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, fully addresses the recited multi-cyclone sediment filter as claimed.
With respect to the specific geometrical dimension feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, does not expressly disclose the claimed feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”; however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm” as claimed since the multi-cyclone sediment filter taught by Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, is considered fully functional and optimal in design/manufacturing purposes. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 12, Pesetsky discloses each cyclone has a truncated conical body which decreases in cross-section area from an upper region of the cyclone cartridge toward a lower region of the cyclone cartridge, wherein a narrow end of each cyclone terminates at a tubular outlet (18, 14, 12, 16, Fig. 1; Fig. 3).
In regard to claims 13-18, as set forth above, Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, fully addresses the recited multi-cyclone sediment filter as claimed.
With respect to the specific geometrical dimension feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm”, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, does not expressly disclose the claimed feature of “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm”; however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the “the tubular outlet is about 15mm in length”, or “the tubular outlet has an internal diameter of about 8.9mm”, or “centres of the cyclones are located on a pitch circle diameter of about 154mm” as claimed since the multi-cyclone sediment filter taught by Pesetsky, in view of Tandon, is considered fully functional and optimal in design/manufacturing purposes. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claims 20-21, as set forth above, Pesetsky, in view of Tandon and Bier, fully addresses the recited feature of “a discharge port is located at or near a lowermost region of said sump wherein the angular incline crosses the central vertical longitudinal axis towards the discharge port”.
The claimed sump angle between about 10 degrees and 30 degrees relative to horizontal, or about 20 degrees relative to horizontal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize multi-cyclone sediment filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the multi-cyclone or sump bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the feedstock as well as the nature of the sump outlet end-products.
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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights