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 07, 2026.
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 Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 04/07/2026 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to Drawings and claims 21-22 thereto are withdrawn accordingly.
Terminal Disclaimer
It is acknowledged that Terminal Disclaimer regarding the U.S. Patent No. 11,633,678 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 11,033,835 B1 were filed on 04/07/2026. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections to claims 21-40 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to Claims both filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered.
It is noted that claim 21, an independent claim from which all of the 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 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 the 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 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 prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;” in the context of a system or an apparatus for removing particulates from liquid and inducing drag in a liquid flow as claimed. See Remarks, pages 11-13.
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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
But Babcanec does not explicitly discloses the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture…… and is configured to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;”.
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)”.
Babcanec discloses 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 (paragraph [0044]).
In light of teachings from Babcanec, in case where a tube is inserted into a sump outlet aperture (114, Fig. 1), and a vacuum is applied through the tube, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the tube does not renders liquid bypasses the main intended processing area, rather enhances purging of the liquid through the sump outlet aperture. This renders the recitation “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture…… and is configured to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;” prima facie obvious.
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 discloses the recited feature of “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture…… and is configured to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;”.
The recitation “short circuiting of the liquid flow” is reasonably interpreted as “an undesired flow pattern where liquid bypasses the main intended processing area, such as cyclone separator, and travels directly from the inlet to the outlet”.
Babcanec discloses 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 (paragraph [0044]).
In light of teachings from Babcanec, in case where a tube is inserted into a sump outlet aperture (114, Fig. 1), and a vacuum is applied through the tube, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the tube does not renders liquid bypasses the main intended processing area, rather enhance purging of the fluid through the sump outlet aperture. This renders the recitation “a tube positioned below the sump inlet aperture…… and is configured to prevent short circuiting of the liquid flow;” prima facie obvious.
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, 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.
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