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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21 and 31 have been amended. No new claim has been added. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21-40 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to Claims both filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered.
It is noted that claim 21, an independent claim from which all of its dependent claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;” in the context of a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as claimed.
It is noted that claim 31, an independent claim from which all of its dependent claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow” in the context of an apparatus for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as claimed.
Applicant argues that: the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Babcanec et al. (US 2018/0245327 A1) and/or Cobb et al. (US 2005/0145555A1), this is because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the amended features of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;” in the context of a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as claimed. See Remarks, pages 8-10.
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 21-40 are presented in view of the previously found reference and a newly found reference, Babcanec et al. (US 2019/0284790 A1), in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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 21-23 and 25-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcanec et al. (US 2018/0245327 A1, hereinafter “Babcanec”), in view of Babcanec et al. (US 2019/0284790 A1, hereinafter “Babcanec’790”).
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).
But Babcanec does not explicitly disclose the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow”.
However, Babcanec’790 discloses system for removing particulates from liquid, wherein the system comprises (Fig. 8; claim 1):
(i) a base portion;
(ii) a tubular portion extending upwardly from the base portion, wherein the tubular portion comprises an inlet and an outlet;
(iii) a liquid quality device located above the base portion, wherein the liquid quality device includes a partitioning portion comprising: a first region comprising a funnel and a sump inlet aperture, wherein the first region is arranged to receive a flow of the liquid from the inlet of the tubular portion; and a second region comprising a sump outlet aperture, wherein the second region is arranged to transfer a flow of the liquid to the outlet of the tubular portion;
(iv) a sump region located between the base portion and the partitioning portion, wherein a flow of the liquid travels from the inlet in the tubular portion, into the funnel, through the sump inlet aperture, into the sump region, through the sump outlet aperture, and out the outlet of the tubular portion; and
(v) a plurality of drag-inducing portions positioned proximate the tubular portion in the sump region and projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region; wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions comprise: a first drag-inducing portion; a second drag-inducing portion located below the first drag-inducing portion; and a third drag-inducing portion located below the second drag-inducing portion.
The recitation “short circuiting of the liquid flow” is reasonably interpreted as “an undesired liquid flow pattern where liquid bypasses the main intended processing area, such as a separator, and travels directly from the inlet (outlet) to the outlet (inlet) or desired location”.
The teachings of Babcanec’790 discloses the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow”.
It is noted that both the Babcanec and Babcanec’790 references direct a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow.
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 system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow of Babcanec to provide the feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow” as taught by Babcanec’790, because the recited feature is a known, effective features for preventing short circuiting of the liquid flow in manufacturing a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as taught by Babcanec’790 ((Fig. 8; claim 1).
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 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 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).
But Babcanec does not explicitly disclose the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow”.
However, Babcanec’790 discloses system for removing particulates from liquid, wherein the system comprises (Fig. 8; claim 1):
(i) a base portion;
(ii) a tubular portion extending upwardly from the base portion, wherein the tubular portion comprises an inlet and an outlet;
(iii) a liquid quality device located above the base portion, wherein the liquid quality device includes a partitioning portion comprising: a first region comprising a funnel and a sump inlet aperture, wherein the first region is arranged to receive a flow of the liquid from the inlet of the tubular portion; and a second region comprising a sump outlet aperture, wherein the second region is arranged to transfer a flow of the liquid to the outlet of the tubular portion;
(iv) a sump region located between the base portion and the partitioning portion, wherein a flow of the liquid travels from the inlet in the tubular portion, into the funnel, through the sump inlet aperture, into the sump region, through the sump outlet aperture, and out the outlet of the tubular portion; and
(v) a plurality of drag-inducing portions positioned proximate the tubular portion in the sump region and projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region; wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions comprise: a first drag-inducing portion; a second drag-inducing portion located below the first drag-inducing portion; and a third drag-inducing portion located below the second drag-inducing portion.
The recitation “short circuiting of the liquid flow” is reasonably interpreted as “an undesired liquid flow pattern where liquid bypasses the main intended processing area, such as a separator, and travels directly from the inlet (outlet) to the outlet (inlet) or desired location”.
The teachings of Babcanec’790 discloses the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow”.
It is noted that both the Babcanec and Babcanec’790 references direct a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow.
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 system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow of Babcanec to provide the feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture, wherein the tube extends downwardly from the sump inlet aperture into the sump region and is configured to direct the liquid flow into the sump region to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow” as taught by Babcanec’790, because the recited feature is a known, effective features for manufacturing a system for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as taught by Babcanec’790 ((Fig. 8; claim 1).
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 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.
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).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcanec, in view of Babcanec’790, 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 Babcanec’790, and further 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.
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
Prosecution Insights