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 (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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A and Subspecies A2 (figs. 5a-5c), claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 09/23/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
first means for adding in claim 1.
second means for adding in claim 5.
third means for adding in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0056] describes the first, second, and third means for adding is referring to chemical adding respectively to elements 9a-9c in fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, the phrase "preferable" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molgaard et al (US 20210308617; hereinafter Molgaard) in view of BR PI0802871 (hereinafter BR ‘871) or CN 202643391 (hereinafter CN ‘391) or CN 213803073 (hereinafter CN ‘073) or CN 213865529 (hereinafter CN ‘529).
As regarding claim 1, Molgaard discloses the claimed invention for a system for treating a fluid used for cleaning exhaust gas from pollutants including particulate matter, comprising a circulation tank (19) for accommodating said fluid, said circulation tank comprising an outlet for bleeding off part of the fluid, first means for adding (11), downstream said outlet of the circulation tank, a first chemical to said part of the fluid, said first chemical comprising a coagulant ([0045] – polyaluminium chloride), and a separation device (9) comprising an inlet arranged downstream said first means (11), which separation device is arranged for receiving a mixture comprising said part of the fluid and said first chemical, and for separating the mixture into a first fraction (sludge tank 10) and a second fraction ([0049] – replenishing of circulation tank), which first fraction contains more particulate matter than the second fraction, wherein the system further comprises a flocculation arrangement comprising a first flocculator device (7) arranged upstream said inlet of the separation device (9) and downstream said first means.
Molgaard does not disclose which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions, the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device.
BR ‘871 (or CN ‘391, CN ‘073, CN ‘529) teaches which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions (BR ‘871 – fig. 1; CN ‘391 – figs. 2-3, CN ‘073 – figs. 1-3, CN ‘529 – figs. 1-2), the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions, the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device as taught by BR ‘871 (or CN ‘391, CN ‘073, CN ‘529) in order to enhance mixing, improve floc growth, space efficiency, and minimizing mechanical complexity.
As regarding claim 7, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the flocculation arrangement, in a normal state of use of the system, has a width, a length and a height, the height exceeding the width (BR ‘871 – fig. 1; CN ‘391 – figs. 2-3, CN ‘073 – figs. 1-3, CN ‘529 – figs. 1-2).
Alternatively, Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to change wherein the flocculation arrangement, in a normal state of use of the system, has a width, a length and a height, the height exceeding the width in order to enhance system performance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (or dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regarding claim 8, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least one of the width, the length and the height of the flocculation arrangement is less than 1/10 of the pipe length of the pipe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein at least one of the width, the length and the height of the flocculation arrangement is less than 1/10 of the pipe length of the pipe in order to enhance flocculation device performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claims 9 and 16, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pipe has a pipe length/diameter ratio larger than 100 and/or a retention time of 10-100 seconds, or 20-40 seconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the pipe has a pipe length/diameter ratio larger than 100 and/or a retention time of 10-100 seconds, or 20-40 seconds in order to enhance flocculation device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molgaard et al (US 20210308617; hereinafter Molgaard) in view of BR PI0802871 (hereinafter BR ‘871) or CN 202643391 (hereinafter CN ‘391) or CN 213803073 (hereinafter CN ‘073) or CN 213865529 (hereinafter CN ‘529), as applied supra, and further in view of Vion et al (US 20150076075; hereinafter Vion).
As regarding claim 2, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a first mixer device arranged upstream said first flocculator device and downstream the outlet of the circulation tank, which first mixer device is arranged to disperse said first chemical in said part of the fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a first mixer device arranged upstream said first flocculator device and downstream the outlet of the circulation tank, which first mixer device is arranged to disperse said first chemical in said part of the fluid in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Vion ([0045]-[0046]).
As regarding claim 3, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first mixer device is static (Vion – [0045]).
As regarding claim 4, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first flocculator device is static (Vion – abstract).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molgaard et al (US 20210308617; hereinafter Molgaard) in view of BR PI0802871 (hereinafter BR ‘871) or CN 202643391 (hereinafter CN ‘391) or CN 213803073 (hereinafter CN ‘073) or CN 213865529 (hereinafter CN ‘529), as applied supra, and further in view of Syal (US 20180099890).
As regarding claims 5-6, Molgaard as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Molgaard as modified discloses the claimed invention for second means for adding, downstream said outlet of the circulation tank and upstream said inlet of the separation device, a second chemical to said part of the fluid, said second chemical comprising a flocculant ([0053]); and, a third chemical to said part of the fluid, said third chemical comprising an alkaline agent for obtaining a pH of said part of the fluid of between 6 and 8 ([0045]).
Molgaard as modified does not disclose second and third means for adding, downstream said outlet of the circulation tank and upstream said inlet of the separation device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide second and third means for adding, downstream said outlet of the circulation tank and upstream said inlet of the separation device in order to enhance system performance and efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Syal ([0041]-[0043] - multiple fee pump 103).
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20220113176 (hereinafter KR ‘176) in view of KR 1662884 (hereinafter KR ‘884)
As regarding claim 1, KR ‘176 discloses the claimed invention for a system for treating a fluid used for cleaning exhaust gas from pollutants including particulate matter, comprising a circulation tank (13) for accommodating said fluid, said circulation tank comprising an outlet for bleeding off part of the fluid, first means for adding (30), downstream said outlet of the circulation tank, a first chemical to said part of the fluid, said first chemical comprising a coagulant ([0073]), and a separation device (60) comprising an inlet arranged downstream said first means ([0067]), which separation device is arranged for receiving a mixture comprising said part of the fluid and said first chemical, and for separating the mixture into a first fraction and a second fraction, which first fraction contains more particulate matter than the second fraction, wherein the system further comprises a flocculation arrangement comprising a first flocculator device arranged upstream said inlet of the separation device and downstream said first means.
KR ‘176 does not disclose which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions, the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device.
KR ‘884 teaches which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions (figs. 1-3, claim 1), the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide which flocculation arrangement comprises a pipe having a pipe length and comprising a plurality of pipe portions, wherein said pipe is bent such that said pipe portions at least partly extend along each other, and wherein the first flocculator device comprises a first pipe portion of said pipe portions, the flocculation arrangement being arranged to retain said part of the fluid and said first chemical to promote agglomeration of particulate matter comprised in said part of the fluid before the mixture is received by the separation device as taught by KR ‘884 in order to enhance mixing, improve floc growth, space efficiency, and minimizing mechanical complexity.
Claims 2-4 are likewise rejected with the same reasons as stated in claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 16 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights