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 . 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 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.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending
Examined
15-25
2 and 3
1 & 4-6
7-14
1 and 4-25
1 and 4-14
Claims 1 and 4-14, drawn to a method, are fully considered.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 09/10/2025) 35 USC §112 and §103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections. However, after careful reconsideration of the claims, Examiner believes new 35 USC §103 rejections are appropriate and has applied such rejections to the noted claims.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated December 10, 2025, Applicant amended the claims to address the rejections and claim interpretations of the prior Office action (OA), to clarify the claim language, and to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies new grounds of rejections in this OA including a combination of prior art of record and a new reference.
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, 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US20090314722) in view of Duperon Corporation (Bar Screen Capture Rates - It's Not So Simple; 2-19-2019; DC) (of record) and Duperon (US5425875)(IDS of 04-24-2023).
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. The italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-14, Kelly discloses a method of controlling the flow of water through a bar screen assembly positioned in said water (Abstract), said method comprising
flowing water through the bar screen assembly comprising a first bar and a second bar collectively defining a plurality of openings through the bar screen assembly ([0007], [0009], where a bar screen assembly impliedly included at least first and second bars and a plurality of screen openings), the plurality of openings providing a first flow volume through the bar screen assembly ([0008], [0015], where flow rate in interpreted as flow volume);
determining a water level on an upstream side of the screen and a water level on a downstream side of the screen ([0007], [0008], [0040]); and
when the water level on the upstream side of the screen is greater than the water level on the downstream side of the screen,
configuring the screen to a second configuration in which the plurality of openings provides a second flow level through the screen greater than the first flow level ([0015]-[0030], [0040]-[0043], where removing the blockage by actions such as initiating a cleaning cycle, changing a speed of the screen, introducing hot or cold water or chemicals into a spray manifold for cleaning the screen, increasing the pressure of spray water in the spray manifold, increasing the flow rate of the spray wash water, and actuating a cleaning brush on the screen, are all methods of configuring the screen to a second configuration and second flow level).
Therefore, Kelly discloses the invention, except for:
moving the first bar relative to the second bar to configure the screen to a second configuration in which the plurality of openings defined by the remaining second bar provides a second flow volume through the screen greater than the first flow volume.
DC discloses a method of measuring a capture rate for a specific screen in a channel for a specific time and set of conditions (p. 1). Duperon describes a front-clean, rear-return screen that operates as a batch system designed to run intermittently, allowing a mat of debris to build up on the screen to capture debris finer than the specified clear opening such that once a level of head loss is achieved, the screen will start moving in slow increments to allow a new mat of debris to build up on the newly exposed screening area (p. 2). That is, only when a certain head loss is reached will the screen advance to expose a new clear section of screen (Id.). This arrangement is tantamount to moving a first bar to configure the screen to a second configuration.
With respect to the relative motion of the bars, Duperon discloses an apparatus for scraping debris from a trash rack occupying a position in a flowing stream with a driven, upper turning drum and a pair of chains trained about the drum and is carrying scraper blades which engage and carry debris on the upstream side of the rack upwardly for disposal (Abstract). Each chain comprises a plurality of links joined at their adjacent ends by pivot connections which have abutments that confront one another to limit the range of relative pivotal movement of the adjacent links and maintain the runs in laterally spaced relation to one another, even when the runs are inclined to vertical (col. 1, lines 52-57). Each chain 34 includes a plurality of elongate, rigid bar links 40 that are joined end-to-end by pivot connections P constructed to limit relative movement of the links in one direction only from a position in which the links are in linear prolongation of each other (col. 3, lines 5-25). A preferred construction for the pivot connection is a knuckle joint formed in part by a yoke at the leading end of each link (Id.). The knuckle joints permit two adjacent links 40 to pivot freely relatively to one another (Id.). Although the relative movement is limited, Duperon discloses where screen bars move relative to each other.
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more actions aimed at regulating the bar screen openings, including moving a first bar (or a plurality of bars) by a suitable amount relative to a second bar, or changing a portion of an active bar field of the bar screen, or removing one or more bar screens, based on routine experimentation, to configure the screen assembly to a second or a subsequent bar configuration, in the manner claimed, since bar moving or removing, or cleaning operations during filtration is traditional, and because DC describes alternate action concepts with respect to differential head, including advancing a rake or screen based on differing water levels upstream versus downstream, to either remove debris or allow water to flow more freely through a less clogged section of the screen, all of which ultimately improves system performance of the screen assembly.
It would have been obvious to move the first bar relative to the second bar to configure the screen to a second configuration since Duperon teaches relative movement of the rigid bar links and the links control movement of the bars.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 4: Claim 4 is an independent method claim but appears to includes many of the same major elements recited in claim 1. As such, in the interest of convenience and brevity, Examiner applies the claim 1 analysis herein, without repeating the text in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Kelly, DC and Duperon combined discloses or suggests a method of controlling a flow of water through a screen assembly positioned in the water, the method comprising:
flowing water through a bar screen comprising a first bar and a second bar collectively defining a plurality of openings, wherein the plurality of openings provides a first flow volume
determining a head differential between an upstream side of the screen and a downstream side of the screen; and
when the head differential of the water indicates that a water level on the upstream side of the screen is greater than a level of water on the downstream side of the screen, moving the first bar relative to the second bar to configure the screen to a second configuration in which the plurality of openings provides a second flow volume through the screen greater than the first flow volume (claim 1 analysis, where head differential is interpreted as a differing water levels on each side of the screen); Claim 5: When the head differential of the water indicates that a water level on the upstream side of the screen is greater than a level of water on the downstream side of the screen, increasing a speed of debris removing equipment configured to remove debris from the bar screen. (claim 1 analysis); Claim 6: The operation of configuring the screen comprises regulating a plurality of bar openings of the bar screen (claim 1 analysis); Claim 7: The operation of regulating the plurality of bar openings comprises changing a portion of an active bar field of the bar screen (claim 1 analysis); Claim 8: The operation of changing a portion of the active bar field comprises moving a number of bars of the bar screen (claim 1 analysis); Claim 9: The operation of moving the number of bars comprises elevating the number of bars of the bar screen out of the flow of water (Examiner views this as implicit to removing the bars); Claim 10: When the head differential indicates that the water level on the upstream side of the screen has decreased relative to the water level on the downstream side of the screen, returning the screen to the first configuration by returning the number of bars of the bar screen (claim 1 analysis; alternately, it would have been obvious to return the screen to the first configuration since the moving action was caused by the head differential); Claim 11: The head differential increase indicates a screen blockage or an increased water flow rate (claim 1 analysis, where this is implicit, particularly since there are since no additional manipulative steps); Claim 12: When the head differential indicates that the water level on the upstream side of the screen has decreased relative to the water level on the downstream side of the screen, returning the screen to the first configuration (claim 10 analysis); Claim 13: The screen is changed to the second configuration when the head differential is over six inches (claim 1 analysis; alternately, it would have been obvious to routinely experiment and thereby choose a suitable head differential, such as over six inches); and Claim 14: The screen is returned to the first configuration when the head differential is reduced to six inches (see claims 10 and 13 analyses).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03-28-2016 have been fully considered. In view of the claim amendments, Examiner has modified the rejections such that Applicant’s arguments that “neither Kelly nor Duperon disclose, teach, or suggest at least moving a first bar relative to a second bar” may no longer be applicable. In this OA, Examiner a new reference that discloses that one bar may move relative to another bar rather than only the entire screen moving.
With respect to the amended claims, Examiner has added one or more new references and/or clarified rationales with respect to any new or amended limitations. As such, Examiner believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the modified patentability analysis above. While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts to expedite prosecution of the Application, for the stated reasons, it does not appear that the claims are not presently in condition for allowance.
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1779