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 first action on the merits of the application. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "330" and "730" have both been used to designate a clean-out riser pipe 330 in Fig. 3 (Specification, paragraph [041]), and reference characters "401" and "410" have both been used to designate a liquid quality device 401 in Fig. 4 (Specification, paragraph [043]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “the sump inlet aperture” in line 11 which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 22 recites “the sump outlet aperture” in lines 1-2 which lacks an antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 21-23, 25 and 27-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babcanec et al. (US 2018/0245327 A1, hereinafter “Babcanec”).
In regard to claim 21, Babcanec discloses a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow (Abstract), wherein the system comprises (Fig. 8, Figs. 1-7 and Figs. 9-12 are detailed descriptions of parts in Fig. 8; paragraphs [0033]-[0074]):
(i) a base (210, Fig. 8);
(ii) a tubular body (200, Fig. 8) extending upwardly from the base, wherein the tubular body comprises an inlet (220, Fig. 8) and an outlet (230, Fig. 8);
(iii) a liquid quality device (801, Fig. 8) located above the base (210, Fig. 8), comprising:
a first region (111, Fig. 1) having a funnel with a sump inlet aperture (112, Fig. 1);
a second region (113, Fig. 1) having a sump outlet aperture (114, Fig. 1); and
a weir (120, Fig. 1) positioned between the first region and the second region;
(iv) a sump region (240, Fig. 8) located between the base (210, Fig. 8) and the liquid quality device (801, Fig. 8);
(v) a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region (in paragraph [0044], “a tube can be inserted through one or more of these apertures (112, 114 or an additional aperture), and a vacuum can be applied through the tube”); and
(vi) a plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region, wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions comprise: a first set of drag-inducing portions; a second set of drag-inducing portions; a third set of drag-inducing portions; and a fourth set of drag-inducing portions (a set of drag inducing portion 850, Fig. 8 attached to the supporting portion 860, Fig. 8, there are four sets of drag inducing portions attached on the four supporting portion 860a, 860b, 860c, and 860d).
In regard to claim 22, Babcanec discloses the sump inlet aperture (112, Fig. 1) and the sump outlet aperture (114, Fig. 1) are offset relative to each other in a horizontal direction (Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 23, Babcanec discloses the first region, the second region, and the weir are integrated into a single piece (paragraphs [0033]; [0064]).
In regard to claim 25, Babcanec discloses the weir (720, Fig. 7) further comprises an aperture (721, Fig. 7) positioned for an increased flow rate.
In regard to claims 27 and 28, Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions (four sets of drag inducing portions 850 attached on the four supporting portion 860a, 860b, 860c, and 860d) comprises a plurality of teeth (Figs. 11 and 12). Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions 850 is attached to respective supporting portions 860 (Figs. 11-12).
In regard to claim 29, Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions and the respective supporting portions are integrated into a single piece (paragraph [0064]).
In regard to claim 30, Babcanec discloses the first region is configured to receive a flow of liquid from the inlet of the tubular body and transfer the flow of liquid through the sump inlet aperture of the funnel and into the sump region, and the second region is configured to receive the flow of liquid from the sump region through the sump outlet aperture and transfer the flow of liquid to the outlet of the tubular body (Fig. 5B).
In regard to claim 31, Babcanec discloses an apparatus for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow (Abstract), wherein the apparatus is configured for insertion into a manhole thereby creating a sump region (240, Fig. 8) below the apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises (Fig. 8, Figs. 1-7 and Figs. 9-12 are detailed descriptions of parts in Fig. 8; paragraphs [0033]-[0074]):
(i) a liquid quality device (801, Fig. 8), comprising:
a first region (111, Fig. 1) having a funnel with a sump inlet aperture (112, Fig. 1);
a second region (113, Fig. 1) having a sump outlet aperture (114, Fig. 1); and
a weir (120, Fig. 1) positioned between the first region and the second region;
(ii) a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region (in paragraph [0044], “a tube can be inserted through one or more of these apertures (112, 114 or an additional aperture), and a vacuum can be applied through the tube”); and
(iii) a plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region, wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions comprise: a first set of drag-inducing portions; a second set of drag-inducing portions; a third set of drag-inducing portions; and a fourth set of drag-inducing portions (a set of drag inducing portion 850, Fig. 8 attached to the supporting portion 860, Fig. 8, there are four sets of drag inducing portions attached on the four supporting portion 860a, 860b, 860c, and 860d).
In regard to claim 32, Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions (four sets of drag inducing portions 850 attached on the four supporting portion 860a, 860b, 860c, and 860d) comprises a plurality of teeth (Figs. 11 and 12). Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions is attached to respective supporting portions (Figs. 11-12).
In regard to claims 33 and 34, Babcanec discloses the drag-inducing portions (four sets of drag inducing portions attached on the four supporting portion 860a, 860b, 860c, and 860d) comprises a plurality of teeth (850, Figs. 11 and 12).
In regard to claim 35, Babcanec discloses the plurality of teeth of the first set of drag-inducing portions and the plurality of teeth of the third set of drag-inducing portions are oriented in a first direction and the plurality of teeth of the second set of drag-inducing portions and the plurality of teeth of the fourth set of drag-inducing portions are oriented in a second direction (Figs. 11-12).
In regard to claims 37 and 38, Babcanec discloses the weir comprises a curvature along a horizontal direction (paragraph [0034]), and the second region comprises a flat profile in a horizontal dimension (paragraph [0035]).
In regard to claim 39, Babcanec discloses the weir partially separates the first region from the second region (paragraph [0034]).
In regard to claim 40, Babcanec discloses each of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of drag-inducing portions 850, Fig. 8 is attached to an internal surface of the sump region (860, Fig. 8) and projects inwardly toward the central axis of the sump region (Fig. 8).
Babcanec discloses every limitation recited in claims 21-23, 25 and 27-35 and 37-40.
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 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcanec et al. (US 2018/0245327 A1).
In regard to claim 26, as set forth above, Babcanec discloses a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region (in paragraph [0044], “a tube can be inserted through one or more of these apertures (112, 114 or an additional aperture), and a vacuum can be applied through the tube”).
Regarding the location of the tube from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region, although Babcanec does not explicitly discloses the location of the tube from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region, the claimed location of the tube would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize liquid quality device activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow operation (residence time, flow regime (e.g., turbulent or laminar flows), throughput), the geometry of the liquid quality device bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid feedstock to be treated as well as the nature of the treated liquid end-products.
In regard to claim 36, as set forth above, Babcanec discloses a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region (in paragraph [0044], “a tube can be inserted through one or more of these apertures (112, 114 or an additional aperture), and a vacuum can be applied through the tube”).
Regarding the location of the tube from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region, although Babcanec does not explicitly discloses the location of the tube from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region, the claimed location of the tube would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize liquid quality device activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow operation (residence time, flow regime (e.g., turbulent or laminar flows), throughput), the geometry of the liquid quality device bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid feedstock to be treated as well as the nature of the treated liquid end-products.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcanec, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cobb et al. (US 2005/0145555A1, hereinafter “Cobb”).
In regard to claim 24, Babcanec does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a plate wherein the plate projects inwardly toward a central axis of the sump region.
However, Cobb discloses a screen apparatus for improved separation of particulates from a fluid stream (Abstract). The screen is configured and arranged to filter relatively large particulates from the fluid stream as the fluid stream passes from a storage chamber of the tank to a tank outlet. The screen is removably affixed to a diverter, such as a baffle, used to divert a portion or all of the fluid into the storage chamber (paragraphs [0012]-[0014]). Cobb discloses an embodiment of a screen plate (200, Fig. 6) wherein the plate projects inwardly toward a central axis of the separation tube region (Fig. 6).
It is noted that both the Babcanec and Cobb references direct a system for removing particulates from liquid.
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 Babcanec, in view of Cobb, to provide the feature of the system further comprising a screen plate wherein the screen plate projects inwardly toward a central axis of the sump region, because the feature of the system further comprising a screen plate wherein the screen plate projects inwardly toward a central axis of the sump region is a known, effective features for further collecting (screening) solid particulates from liquid as suggested by Cobb (Fig. 6) and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known system for removing particulates from liquid for further collecting solid particulates thereby to yield predictable results.
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 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,678 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow recited in claims 21-40 directs a presence of a base; a tubular body extending upwardly from the base, a liquid quality device; a sump region; a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture; a plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting; and a plate projecting inwardly toward a central axis of the sump region which is considered essentially the same apparatus recited in 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,678 B2.
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,033,835 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow recited in claims 21-40 directs a presence of a base; a tubular body extending upwardly from the base, a liquid quality device; a sump region; a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture; a plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting; and a plate projecting inwardly toward a central axis of the sump region which is considered essentially the same apparatus recited in 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,033,835 B1.
Conclusion
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