DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-27 are 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/265,178 in view of Jones (WO 2019/122862).
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose the filter unit for filtering microparticles from a feed liquid containing microparticles, the filter unit comprising: a filter chamber extending along an axis, and comprising opposing first end and second end walls and at least one sidewall extending between the first end and second end walls, wherein both the first end and second end walls are coincident with the axis, and wherein the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein and a cap removable from the opening; a filter cage contained within the filter chamber and configured to rotate about the axis, the filter cage comprising: a first end proximal to the first end wall of the filter chamber when the filter cage is in the filter chamber wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening; a second end proximal to the second end wall of the filter chamber when the filter cage is in the filter chamber (cage is in the chamber, therefore it will inherently have one end closer the first end wall and one end closer the second end wall) (see claim 6); a filter cage sidewall between the first end and the second end, wherein the filter cage sidewall is or comprises one or more than one filter media for filtering microparticles from the feed liquid; and wherein the filter cage is removable from the filter chamber through the opening in the second end wall of the filter chamber; wherein the filter chamber further comprises: an inlet configured to pass feed liquid into the filter chamber to supply feed liquid into the filter cage via the opening at the first end of the filter cage when the filter is in the filter chamber; and an outlet for passage of filtered liquid out of the filter chamber (see claim 1); the filter unit further comprises: a connection member comprising a first connection surface (mating surface on drive shaft) (see claim 8); and a drive shaft configured to drive rotation of the filter cage (see claim 1); wherein the first connection surface is configured to cooperate with a second connection surface (mating surface on filter cage) to provide a detachable connection therebetween (see claim 8) wherein the second connection surface is on the filter cage (see claim 8).
The claims of the copending application do not disclose a first seal surface, the first seal surface is configured to cooperate with a second seal surface to provide a rotary seal permitting relative rotation therebetween wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber and the second connection surface is on the filter cage or wherein the second seal surface is on the filter cage and the second connection surface is on the filter chamber.
Jones teaches a filter unit for filtering microparticles comprising a first seal surface (non-contact seal on cap side), the first seal surface is configured to cooperate with a second seal surface (non-contact seal on lid side) to provide a rotary seal permitting relative rotation therebetween (see pg. 13 lines 15-25) wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber (on the lid).
The copending application and Jones are analogous inventions in the art of filtering microparticles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the first seal surface and second seal surface of Jones to the to the cap (see claim 10 of the copending application) and lid (see claim 1 of the copending application) of the copending application because it inhibits return flow of filtered fluid (see Jones pg. 13 lines 21-25).
Regarding Claim 2:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, discloses the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber and the second connection surface is on the filter cage, and the connection member is not removable from the filter chamber (drive shaft and lid are not disclosed in the claims as removable and connection member is on the drive shaft and lid).
Regarding Claim 3:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, discloses the filter unit according to claim 2, wherein the drive shaft is configured to drive rotation of the filter cage via the connection member (see claim 8).
Regarding Claim 4:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, discloses the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the second end of the filter cage comprises a rotatable connection (coupling permits rotation) to the cap (see claim 11).
Regarding Claim 5:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, discloses the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the filter cage comprises an opening (impeller is removable from the cage, therefore an opening is inherent) (see claims 12-13).
The claims of the copending application are silent as to the location of the opening and that is at least 60%, or at least 75%, or at least 95% of the area bounded by the filter cage sidewall at the opening at the first end of the filter cage measured perpendicular to the axis. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the opening on the first end of the filter cage because it is a simple rearrangement of parts, obviously resulting in the an opening through which the impeller can be removed. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the size of the opening to at least 60% because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found an appropriate opening size to remove the impeller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 6:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening where an edge of the opening is coincident with the filter cage sidewall (see claim 10). The claims do not explicitly teach the edge is coincident with the sidewall. The claims further teach a cap on the filter cage, as a cap covers an opening there is inherently an opening. It would have been obvious to one skilled int eh art before the effective filing date to make the opening coincident with the sidewall because it is a simple change in size of the opening, obviously resulting in objects being able to fit through the opening with an expectation of success. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the filter cage sidewall defines an interior and an exterior of the filter cage and the filter cage comprises one or more impellor blades on the interior and/or exterior of the filter cage (see claims 12-13).
Regarding Claim 8:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, teach the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the connection member comprises a passageway (inlet is hollow and drive shaft passed through inlet) to pass feed liquid from the inlet into the opening at the first end of the filter cage (see claims 1, 5, and 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-13, 26 and 27 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein…” It is not clear how an end wall can be an opening. It is not clear if any solid wall is actually required on the second end to be considered a “wall” or not.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim states “the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening”. It is not clear if the opening of claim 5 is the same opening required in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or an additional opening. For the purposes of examination the “opening” in claim 5 will be interpreted as the same as the opening in claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at least 60%”, and the claim also recites “at least 75%” and “at least 95” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 6:
The claim states “the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening”. It is not clear if the opening of claim 6 is the same opening required in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or an additional opening. For the purposes of examination the “opening” in claim 6 will be interpreted as the same as the opening in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 26:
The claim states “the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein…” It is not clear how an end wall can be an opening. It is not clear if any solid wall is actually required on the second end to be considered a “wall” or not.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from indefinite claims.
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) 14-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (WO 2019/122862).
Regarding Claim 14:
Jones teaches the filter cage (filter 108) for use in a filter unit (filter unit 100) for filtering microparticles from a feed liquid containing microparticles, wherein the filter cage extends along an axis and is configured to be rotatable (rotatably mounted) within the filter unit about the axis and removable from the filter unit; the filter cage comprising: at least one filter cage sidewall extending parallel to the axis (side wall 118), the at least one filter cage sidewall comprising a first end (first end 110) and an opposing second end (second end 114), the filter cage sidewall together with the first and second end defining an interior and exterior of the filter cage (see pg. 42 lines 5-11, fig, 1), wherein the filter cage sidewall is or comprises one or more than one filter media for filtering microparticles from a feed liquid (sidewall has perforation) (see pg. 42 lines 10-12), the filter media defining a filtration surface on the interior of the filter cage where filtered microparticles accumulate during filtering (see pg. 10 lines 16-23); a moveable member (removable portion) in the interior the filter cage comprising a filtration surface cleaning portion (bristles and or scraper) (see pg. 20 lines 1-7) which is proximal to the filtration surface (see pg. 20 lines 8-9); a user operable portion adapted to be operated by hand on the exterior of the filter cage (cap can be griped) (see pg. 20 lines 19-23); wherein the first end of the filter cage is or comprises an opening for extraction of filtered microparticles from the filter cage when the filter cage is removed from the filter unit and for supply of feed liquid into the filter cage when the filter cage is inside the filter unit (see pg. 42 lines 10-16); and wherein the moveable member is connected to the user operable portion so that movement of the user operable portion causes movement of the filtration surface cleaning portion (removable portion is configured to rotate with the cap) relative to the filter cage to detach filtered microparticles from the filtration surface to pass out of the opening at the first end of the filter cage (see pg. 19. Lines 14-16, 23-25).
Regarding Claim 15:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the user operable portion is configured to be moved by rotating around the axis (rotates with the cap, therefore it rotates around the axis) (see pg. 19 lines 14-16).
Regarding Claim 16:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the moveable member is removable from the interior of the filter cage (removable portion) (see pg. 19 line 1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 16, wherein the movable member comprises a secondary filtration surface cleaning portion (pliable scraper) which is proximal to the filtration surface and is configured to remove filtered microparticles (solids are microparticles) from the filtration surface when the movable member is removed from the filter cage (see pg. 20 lines 8-12).
Regarding Claim 18:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the moveable member is connected to the user operable portion by being integrally formed, by additional mechanical components (comprises the cap therefore it is either integrally formed or connected by mechanical components) or by magnetic connection (see pg. 20 lines 19-20).
Regarding Claim 19:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the user operable portion is proximal to second end of the filter cage (plate is proximate…the second end) (see pg. 20 lines 20-21).
Regarding Claim 20:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the moveable member comprises one or more blades (pliable scraper) which extend along the length of the filter cage sidewall, optionally wherein the one or more blades are linear and extend parallel to the axis (see pg. 20 lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 21:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 20, wherein the filter cage is configured so that the one more blades rotate with the filter cage when the filter cage is rotating, but rotate relative to the filter cage when rotated by the user operable portion; and optionally, wherein the one or more blades are configured to function as an impellor when the filter cage is rotating (see Jones pg. 19 lines 1-16).
Regarding Claim 22:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 21, wherein the user operable portion is configurable between a first configuration where the user operable portion cannot move relative to the filter cage (position relative to the filter is fixed) (see pg. 19 lines 8-9), and a second configuration where the user operable portion can move relative to the filter cage (rotate with the cap) (see pg. 19 line 15).
Regarding Claim 23:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 22, wherein one of the user operable portion and the filter cage comprise one or more latches (attachment mechanism) to engage with one or two or more than two engagement members (an attachment mechanism inherently connects to an engagement member. Any location connected to the attachment mechanism can be an engagement member) on the other of the user operable portion and the filter cage (see pg. 21 lines 29-32).
Regarding Claim 24:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening where an edge of the opening is coincident with the filter cage sidewall (see fig, 1).
Regarding Claim 25:
Jones teaches the filter cage according to claim 14, wherein filtered microparticles can be removed from the filter cage without opening the second end of the filter cage (second end is not opened) (see fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (WO 2019/122862) in view of Ji et al (CN 107485909, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Jones teaches the filter unit for filtering microparticles (micro particulate, microfibers) from a feed liquid containing microparticles (see pg. 50, lines 29-30, pg. 11 lines 8-9), the filter unit comprising: a filter chamber (housing 102) extending along an axis, and comprising opposing first end and second end walls and at least one sidewall extending between the first end and second end walls (see fig. 1), wherein both the first end and second end walls are coincident with the axis (see fig. 1); a filter cage (filter 108) contained within the filter chamber and configured to rotate about the axis (rotatably mounted) (see pg. 42 lines 5-10), the filter cage comprising: a first end (first end 110) proximal to the first end wall of the filter chamber when the filter cage is in the filter chamber wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening (cap 128 covers an opening); a second end (second end 114) proximal to the second end wall of the filter chamber when the filter cage is in the filter chamber; a filter cage sidewall (side wall 118) between the first end and the second end (see pg. 42 lines 5-16), wherein the filter cage sidewall is or comprises one or more than one filter media for filtering microparticles from the feed liquid (sidewall has perforation) (see pg. 42 lines 10-12); and wherein the filter cage is removable from the filter chamber (filter is removable from the housing) (see pg. 12 lines 33-35); wherein the filter chamber further comprises: an inlet (inlet 126) configured to pass feed liquid into the filter chamber to supply feed liquid into the filter cage via the opening at the first end of the filter cage when the filter is in the filter chamber (see pg. 42 lines 13-16); and an outlet (outlet 104) for passage of filtered liquid out of the filter chamber (see pg. 42 lines 5-7); the filter unit further comprises: a connection member comprising a first seal surface (concentric rings on lid that form a seal with the concentric rings on the cap) (see pg. 42 lines 30-37) and a first connection surface (surface of drive shaft that engages with the filter) (see pg. 42 lines 21-22) (the connection surface is not limited to any specific surface or structure); and a drive shaft (drive shaft 158) configured to drive rotation of the filter cage (see pg. 42 lines 21-22); wherein the first seal surface is configured to cooperate with a second seal surface (concentric rings on the cap) to provide a rotary seal permitting relative rotation therebetween (cap rotates, lid does not) (see pg. 42 lines 21-26) and the first connection surface is configured to cooperate with a second connection surface (surface of filter in contact with the drive shaft) to provide a detachable connection therebetween (filter is removable); wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber and the second connection surface is on the filter cage or wherein the second seal surface is on the filter cage (filter) and the second connection surface is on the filter chamber (lid of filter chamber) (see pf. 42 lines 21-32, fig. 1).
Jones does not teach and wherein the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein and a cap removable from the opening or that the filter cage is removable through the opening in the second end wall of the filter chamber.
Ji teaches a filter comprising a filter chamber (filter cavity 1) and a filter cage (filtering mechanism 2) (see pg.3: Figure explanation), wherein the filter chamber comprises opposing first end (first end with cover 11) and second end walls (second end with cover 12) (see pg. 5, 6th paragraph, fig. 6), the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein (cover 12 covers an opening, see fig. 1) and a cap (cover 12) removable from the opening see fig. 1). Ji further teaches that the filter cage is removable through the opening in the second end wall of the filter chamber (cover 12 can be separated from the filter cavity, therefore the filter cage can be removed) (see pg. 5, 7th paragraph, figs. 1 and 6).
Jones and Ji are analogous inventions in the art of rotating filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the opening and cap of Ji to the second end wall of Jones because it is the simple addition of a known opening to a known filter, obviously resulting in additional access to the filter cage for removal, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Further Jones teaches that it is desirable to remove the filter from the housing for easier maintenance (see Jones pg. 12 lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 2:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber (lid) and the second connection surface is on the filter cage and the connection member (first seal portion of connection member on cap and first connection surface on drive shaft ) is not removable from the filter chamber (when the cap is a part of the lid it is not removable form the filter chamber as the lid is part of the filter chamber) (see Jones pg. 13 lines 15-17).
Regarding Claim 3:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 2, wherein the drive shaft is configured to drive rotation of the filter cage via the connection member (see Jones pg. 42 lines 21-26).
Regarding Claim 4:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the second end of the filter cage comprises a rotatable connection (twist lock) to the cap (see Jones pg. 46 lines 19-21).
Regarding Claim 5:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening that is at least 60%, or at least 75%, or at least 95% of the area bounded by the filter cage sidewall at the opening at the first end of the filter cage measured perpendicular to the axis (the opening is the entire area bounded by the sidewall) (see Jones fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the first end of the filter cage comprises an opening where an edge of the opening is coincident with the filter cage sidewall (the opening is the entire area bounded by the sidewall) (see Jones fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the filter cage sidewall defines an interior and an exterior of the filter cage and the filter cage comprises one or more impellor blades (impeller blades 162) on the interior and/or exterior of the filter cage (see Jones pg. 42 lines 22-26, fig, 1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the connection member comprises a passageway (aperture 130) to pass feed liquid from the inlet into the opening at the first end of the filter cage (see Jones pg. 42 lines 12-15).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 1 wherein the filter cage sidewall defines an interior and exterior of the filter cage (see Jones fig. 1) and the filter cage comprises: a moveable member (removable portion) in the interior the filter cage comprising a filtration surface cleaning portion (pliable scraper…proximate the side wall) which is proximal to the filtration surface (see Jones pg. 20 lines 8-12); and a user operable portion (operator can grip the cap) adapted to be operated by hand on the exterior of the filter cage; and wherein the moveable member is connected to the user operable portion so that movement of the user operable portion causes movement of the filtration surface cleaning portion relative to the filter cage to detach filtered microparticles from the filtration surface to pass out of the opening (see Jones pg. 20 lines 19-23).
Regarding Claim 10:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 9 wherein the user operable portion is configured to be moved by rotating around the axis and wherein movement of the user operable portion causes rotation of the filtration surface cleaning portion around the axis (scrape against during removal.. removal is from twisting) (see pg. 19 lines 35-37, pg. 22 lines 1-3, pg. 46 lines 20-21).
Regarding Claim 11:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 9, wherein the moveable member is removable from the interior filter cage (see Jones, pg. 20 lines 19-24).
Regarding Claim 12:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 9, wherein the user operable portion is proximal to the second end of the filter cage (see Jones, pg. 19 lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim 13:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filter unit according to claim 9, wherein the moveable member comprises a one or more blades which extend along the length of the filter cage sidewall; and wherein the one or more blades are linear and extend parallel to the axis; and wherein the filter cage is configured so that the one more blades rotate with the filter cage when the filter cage is rotating to function as an impellor, but rotate relative to the filter cage when rotated via the user operable portion (see Jones pg. 19 lines 1-16).
Claim(s) 26 and 27 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (WO 2019/122862) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ji et al (CN 107485909, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 26:
Jones teaches the filter unit for filtering microparticles (micro particulate, microfibers) from a feed liquid containing microparticles (see pg. 50, lines 29-30, pg. 11 lines 8-9), the filter unit comprising: a filter chamber (housing 102) extending along an axis, and comprising opposing first end and second end walls and at least one sidewall extending between the first end and second end walls (see fig. 1), wherein both the first end and second end walls are coincident with the axis (see fig. 1); a filter cage according to claim 14 contained within the filter chamber and configured to rotate about the axis (rotatable mounted) (see pg. 42 lines 5-10), wherein the filter cage is removable from the filter chamber through the opening; and wherein the filter chamber further comprises: an inlet (inlet 126) configured to pass feed liquid into the filter chamber to supply feed liquid into the filter cage via the opening at the first end of the filter cage when the filter is in the filter chamber (see pg. 42 lines 13-16); and an outlet (outlet 104) for passage of filtered liquid out of the filter chamber (see pg. 42 lines 5-7).
Jones does not teach and wherein the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein and a cap removable from the opening or that the filter cage is removable through the opening in the second end wall of the filter chamber.
Ji teaches a filter comprising a filter chamber (filter cavity 1) and a filter cage (filtering mechanism 2) (see pg.3: Figure explanation), wherein the filter chamber comprises opposing first end (first end with cover 11) and second end walls (second end with cover 12) (see pg. 5, 6th paragraph, fig. 6), the second end wall is or comprises an opening therein (cover 12 covers an opening, see fig. 1) and a cap (cover 12) removable from the opening see fig. 1). Ji further teaches that the filter cage is removable through the opening in the second end wall of the filter chamber (cover 12 can be separated from the filter cavity, therefore the filter cage can be removed) (see pg. 5, 7th paragraph, figs. 1 and 6).
Jones and Ji are analogous inventions in the art of rotating filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the opening and cap of Ji to the second end wall of Jones because it is the simple addition of a known opening to a known filter, obviously resulting in additional access to the filter cage for removal, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Further Jones teaches that it is desirable to remove the filter from the housing for easier maintenance (see Jones pg. 12 lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 27:
Jones, as modified, teaches the filer unit according to claim 26, wherein the filter unit further comprises: a connection member comprising a first seal surface (concentric rings on lid that form a seal with the concentric rings on the cap) (see pg. 42 lines 30-37) and a first connection surface (surface of drive shaft that engages with the filter) (see pg. 42 lines 21-22) (the connection surface is not limited to any specific surface or structure); and a drive shaft (drive shaft 158) configured to drive rotation of the filter cage (see pg. 42 lines 21-22); wherein the first seal surface is configured to cooperate with a second seal surface (concentric rings on the cap) to provide a rotary seal permitting relative rotation therebetween (cap rotates, lid does not) (see pg. 42 lines 21-26) and the first connection surface is configured to cooperate with a second connection surface (surface of filter in contact with the drive shaft) to provide a detachable connection therebetween (filter is removable); wherein the second seal surface is on the filter chamber and the second connection surface is on the filter cage or wherein the second seal surface is on the filter cage (filter) and the second connection surface is on the filter chamber (lid of filter chamber) (see pf. 42 lines 21-32, fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 12/30/2025