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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 25 FEBRUARY 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the independent inventions are sufficiently related that there would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because claims 1-17 pertain to a chain skimming apparatus that attaches to a dissolved air flotation tank while claims 18-20 pertain to a method of treating a fluid involving attaching a skimming mechanism and treating fluid with said mechanism. While the two categories are overlapping, apparatuses for skimming which include scrapers, and therefore likely chains, can be found in B01D21/2438, B01D21/2433, and B03D1/1462, while the method claims are much more broad and can include any type of removable skimmer, including floating skimmers (B01D21/0027) and weir skimmers (B01D21/0072) to name a few, and encompasses methods of flotation included in C02F1/24. Therefore, the chain skimmer apparatus and the method of treating a fluid in a dissolved air flotation system require the search of distinctly different categories and there would be a serious search burden if the inventions are not restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 25 FEBRUARY 2026.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-17
Withdrawn Claims: 18-20
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Fig. 8, #204 is not included in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 11, “at a while that the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration” in lines 7-8 of the claim appears to have a grammatical issue with a missing word or too many words. Previous similar phrasing in the instant claims includes “at a time while” and “at some time while” and the phrase could also be corrected by using “while the frame and…”.
In Claim 15, “a primary material of the dissolved air flotation tank” in line 3 of the claim should read “the primary material of the dissolved air flotation tank”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by HydroFloTech, Hydrofloat DAF, https://hydroflotech.com/product/dissolved_air_floatation-hydrofloat/#:~:text=HydroFlo%20provides%20a%20removable%20float,addition%20of%20optional%20cover%20panel., Accessed via Wayback Machine 05 FEBRUARY 2023 (Hereinafter HydroFloTech) with support from Summers, T., HydroFloat Drawing, HydroFloat-Dissolved-Air-Floatation-DAF-System-General-Arrangement-Drawing.pdf, 21 MAY 2020 (hereinafter Summers).
Regarding Claim 1, HydroFloTech discloses a removable float skimming system (i.e., a skimming mechanism for treating fluid, the skimming mechanism comprising; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”)
with the skimming system shown removed and with its own separate frame (i.e., a frame configured to be removably attachable from a dissolved air flotation tank; Fig. on Page 9, seen below)
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the conveyor is seen traversing the length of the frame (i.e., a conveyor traversing a length of the frame; Fig. on Page 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
457
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the skimming system uses a chain and full width skimming blades that are fastened to the skimmer chains (i.e., the conveyor including a chain and at least one scraper blade connected to the chain; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”).
Regarding Claim 2, HydroFloTech further discloses a recessed area around the top of the flotation tank where the removable skimmer system is seated during operation (Fig. on Page 9, seen below) wherein there is a flat plate around the bottom edge of the skimmer system that mates with this ledge (i.e., an alignment mechanism provided on a surface of the frame, the alignment mechanism configured to align the frame with the dissolved air flotation tank at a time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
288
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, HydroFloTech further discloses a ramp at a short side of the frame wherein the blades push the floating scum into the float scum chamber (i.e., a beach disposed at a predetermined distance from a surface of the frame that is located at a side end of the frame; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image5.png
208
851
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, HydroFloTech further discloses that the ramp extends away from the fluid in the separation chamber and towards a surface of the skimmer system on the short end of the frame (i.e., wherein the beach is a ramped surface extending in a direction towards the surface of the frame that is located at the side end of the frame and in a direction away from a fluid in the dissolved air flotation tank at a time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image6.png
235
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, HydroFloTech further discloses that the conveyor chains are provided on a full width shaft at the drive end (i.e., further comprising at least one shaft, wherein the at least one shaft extends across the width of the frame; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”) and the image shows the conveyor extends past the ramp such that the skimmer blades will run past it during operation (i.e., and the at least one shaft is positioned to direct a course of the chain such that the at least one scraper blade runs across the ramped surface of the beach; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image7.png
253
997
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, HydroFloTech further discloses a drive motor used to drive the conveyor chains (i.e., further comprising a motor configured to drive the at least one scraper blade across the length of the frame; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”).
Regarding Claim 10, HydroFloTech further discloses a recessed area around the top of the flotation tank where the removable skimmer system is seated during operation (Fig. on Page 9, seen below) wherein there is a flat plate around the bottom edge of the skimmer system that mates with this ledge (i.e., wherein the alignment mechanism is a keyway; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
288
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, HydroFloTech discloses HydroFloatTM series dissolved air flotation (DAF) system considered to be a traditional DAF design (i.e., a dissolved air flotation system comprising; Page 2, Paragraph 1)
with a DAF separation chamber (i.e., a dissolved air flotation tank; Page 4, “DAF Separation Chamber”),
a removable float skimming system (i.e., a skimming mechanism including; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”)
with the skimming system shown removed and with its own separate frame (i.e., a frame configured to be removably attachable from the dissolved air flotation tank; Fig. on Page 9, seen below),
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein there is a flat plate around the bottom edge of the skimmer system that mates with the separation chamber (i.e., an alignment mechanism provided on a surface of the frame, the alignment mechanism configured to align the frame with the dissolved air flotation tank at a time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Fig. on Page 4, seen below),
PNG
media_image4.png
288
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the conveyor is seen traversing the length of the frame (i.e., a conveyor traversing a length of the frame; Fig. on Page 4),
PNG
media_image2.png
457
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the skimming system uses a chain and full width skimming blades that are fastened to the skimmer chains (i.e., the conveyor including a chain and at least one scraper blade connected to the chain; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”),
a drive motor used to drive the conveyor chains (i.e., a motor configured to rotate the conveyor and drive the at least one scraper blade across the length of the frame; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”),
a recessed area around the top of the flotation tank where the removable skimmer system is seated during operation (i.e., a mating mechanism disposed on the surface of the dissolved air flotation tank, the mating mechanism configured to mate with the alignment mechanism of the frame at a time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Fig. on Page 9, seen below),
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a float scum chamber shown attached to the separation chamber to collect waste collected by the skimmer blades (i.e., and a waste compartment joined to the dissolved air flotation tank; Fig. on Page 4, seen below).
PNG
media_image8.png
448
744
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, HydroFloTech does not disclose wherein the storage capacity of the waste compartment is in a range of 100 to 20,000 gallons on the web page itself. However, Summers is directly linked on the web page and is a schematic drawing of the dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit with sizing capacities of the various chambers. Summers discloses that the dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit has a model with a Float Scum Capacity of 750 gallons (i.e., wherein a storage capacity of the waste compartment is in a range of 100 to 20,000 gallons; Table, Col. 2, Row 14).
PNG
media_image9.png
320
1010
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HydroFloTech as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Wang et al Chinese Patent Application No. CN 111545355 A (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 3, HydroFloTech does not teach further comprising at least one leveling jack disposed at an edge of the frame, the at least one leveling jack configured to level the conveyor with respect to a level of fluid in the dissolved air flotation tank at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration.
However, Wang teaches a retractable and adjustable scraper for a flotation machine (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation) with height adjustment devices (i.e., further comprising at least one leveling jack; Fig. 2, #2) vertically and connected to the top of the flotation machine body (Fig. 2, #1) and to both sides of the flotation cell (i.e., disposed at an edge of the frame) where the distance between the main scraper (Fig. 2, #7) and the bottom of the flotation cell can be adjusted by the height adjustment device according to different water levels (i.e., the at least one leveling jack configured to level the conveyor with respect to a level of fluid in the dissolved air flotation tank at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation) for the purpose of preventing untimely frothing, scraper idling, and excessive frothing (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a retractable and adjustable scraper for a flotation machine (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the skimmer apparatus as taught by HydroFloTech with the height adjustment devices as taught by Wang because the height adjustment devices would prevent untimely frothing, scraper idling, and excessive frothing.
Regarding Claim 17, HydroFloTech does not teach further comprising at least one leveling jack disposed between the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank, the at least one leveling jack configured to level the conveyor with respect to a level of fluid in the dissolved air flotation tank, at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration.
However, Wang teaches a retractable and adjustable scraper for a flotation machine (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation) with height adjustment devices (i.e., further comprising at least one leveling jack; Fig. 2, #2) vertically and connected to the top of the flotation machine body (Fig. 2, #1) and to both sides of the flotation cell and also to the rotating shaft of the scraper (i.e., disposed between the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank) where the distance between the main scraper (Fig. 2, #7) and the bottom of the flotation cell can be adjusted by the height adjustment device according to different water levels (i.e., the at least one leveling jack configured to level the conveyor with respect to a level of fluid in the dissolved air flotation tank at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in an attached configuration; Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation) for the purpose of preventing untimely frothing, scraper idling, and excessive frothing (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the skimmer apparatus as taught by HydroFloTech with the height adjustment devices as taught by Wang because the height adjustment devices would prevent untimely frothing, scraper idling, and excessive frothing.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HydroFloTech as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Eaton, Sunbank Connection Technologies, Sunflex Conduits for Hi-Reliability and Harsh Environments, 03 JANUARY 2022, https://www.eaton.com/us/en-us/catalog/mil-aero-connectors-cable-assemblies/Braided-conduits.html#resources (hereinafter Eaton).
Regarding Claim 8, HydroFloTech does not teach further comprising a flexible conduit wiring in electrical communication with the motor, wherein the flexible conduit wiring is configured to maintain a connection between the motor and a power supply during leveling of the conveyor.
However, Eaton teaches Sunbank “Sunflex” flexible conduits for wiring (i.e., further comprising a flexible conduit wiring in electrical communication with the motor wherein the flexible conduit wiring is configured to maintain a connection between the motor and a power supply during leveling of the conveyor; Page 7) in environments with chemical exposure (Page 8, “Assembly”) with stainless steel braiding being useful for strength and easy crimping or solder termination (Page 8, “Braiding”).
Eaton is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to braided conduits for use in industrial environments involving mechanical stress and corrosive elements (Page 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the skimmer system as taught by HydroFloTech with the flexible conduit wiring as taught by Eaton because the flexible conduit wiring would improve the strength of the wiring and make crimping and solder termination easier.
Regarding Claim 9, Eaton further teaches Sunbank “Sunflex” flexible conduits for wiring (Page 7) in environments with chemical exposure (Page 8, “Assembly”) with stainless steel braiding (i.e., wherein the flexible conduit wiring includes a stainless steel braided hose) being useful for strength and easy crimping or solder termination (Page 8, “Braiding”).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HydroFloTech as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jorsun, How to install the JORSUN DAF skimmer?, 24 JUNE 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJIuB9SBmc (hereinafter Jorsun).
Regarding Claim 12, HydroFloTech does not teach further comprising a fastener for reinforcing removable attachment of the frame to the dissolved air flotation tank at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in the attached configuration.
However, Jorsun teaches the use of bolts (i.e., further comprising a fastener) to attach a skimmer to a DAF tank for the purpose of alignment and firmly fixing the skimmer to the DAF tank (i.e., for reinforcing removable attachment of the frame to the dissolved air flotation tank at some time while the frame and the dissolved air flotation tank are in the attached configuration; Entire video, some exemplary time stamps shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
814
1438
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
816
1434
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
814
1442
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Jorsun is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the installation of a skimmer to a dissolved air flotation machine (Title, entire video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the skimmer system as taught by HydroFloTech with the bolt fasteners as taught by Jorsun because the bolts would align the skimmer on the DAF machine and would also firmly fix the skimmer to the DAF machine.
Regarding Claim 13, Jorsun further teaches that bolts are used to connect the skimmer to the DAF machine (i.e., wherein the fastener is at least one bolt extending through from the frame to the dissolved air flotation tank; Entire video, exemplary time stamp shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
816
1434
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, HydroFloTech further teaches that the skimmer blades are stainless steel (i.e., wherein a primary material of the skimming mechanism; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”) and that the tank is made from A-36 carbon steel (i.e., has a higher corrosion resistance than a primary material of the dissolved air flotation tank; Page 2, Last line). The stainless steel contains chromium and is significantly more corrosion resistant than carbon steel.
Regarding Claim 15, HydroFloTech further teaches that the skimmer blades are stainless steel (i.e., wherein a weight percentage of chromium in the primary material of the skimming mechanism; Page 4, “DAF Surface Skimmer”) and that the tank is made from A-36 carbon steel (i.e., is higher than a weight percentage of chromium in the primary material of the dissolved air flotation tank, a weight percentage of chromium in a primary material of a component being based on a total weight of the primary material of the component; Page 2, Last line). The stainless steel contains chromium, at least 10.5%, and carbon steel does not contain a significant amount of chromium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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 at (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 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights