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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one retrievable diffusor assembly" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly” in line 3. It is not clear if this element is the same recited in claim 1 or if it is a different element.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first air distribution conduit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the control arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “a central guide rail” twice in line 2. It is not clear if these are the same or different elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mandt (US 4,618,426).
With respect to claim 1, Mandt discloses a wastewater aeration treatment apparatus 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: at least one guide rail assembly 62, 64, mounted to a wall of a reservoir means 12 (tank) and extending from a floor of the tank 12 to an upper edge of the wall, as shown in Fig. 1; a platform 66 (at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly) releasably mounted on the guide rail assembly 62, 64, as shown in Fig. 1; and a plurality of aeration elements 40, 50, 506-512, 706-712, secured to the at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly 66, as shown in Figs. 1-6.
With respect to claim 2, Mandt discloses wherein the at least one retrievable diffusor assembly comprises: at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly comprising: a frame 66, as shown in Fig. 1; a plurality of mounting brackets 68 to secure the aeration elements 40, 50, 506-512, 706-712, to the frame 66, as shown in Figs. 1-6; and a first air distribution conduit 22 coupled to the aeration elements for supplying an air flow to the aeration elements, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 3, Mandt discloses wherein the at least one guide rail assembly 62, 64, is configured to move the at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly 66 between a first position above the upper surface of the water to a second position below the surface of the water (see col. 5, lines 4-35).
With respect to claim 4, Mandt discloses wherein the at least one guide rail assembly 62, 64, comprises: at least one guide rail 62, as shown in Fig. 1; a second air distribution conduit 26 coupled to the first air distribution conduit 22, as shown in Fig. 1; and a hold-down rod positioned between the guide rails 62 and connected to the at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly 66, said rod being the element at the end of element 66 in contact with rail 62, as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the hold-down rod is configured to facilitate movement of the at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly 66 along the guide rails 62 between the first position and the second position, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 5, Mandt discloses wherein the at least one retrievable mounting frame assembly further comprises a control arm, said arm being the bottom part of element 30, as shown in Fig. 1, having first and second opposite ends and being secured to the frame 66 at the first end, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 6, Mandt discloses wherein the hold-down rod is connected to the second end of the control arm, as shown in Fig. 1.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandt (US 4,618,426) in view of Frankel et al. (US 2018/0236412) [hereinafter Frankel].
With respect to claim 7, Mandt discloses wherein the at least one guide rail assembly 62, 64, comprises at central guide rail 62, as shown in Fig. 1. Mandt lacks at least one guide roller that engages around a central guide rail to guide the at least one mounting frame when moving along the central guide rail.
Frankel teaches a retrievable aeration system 100, as shown in Fig. 1, having a track 110 (guide rail), as shown in Fig. 1. A plurality of tube diffusers 115 are attached to about half of the pipe modules 105, as shown in Fig. 1. Two respective rollers 135 (i.e., rolling wheels) on each of the pipe modules 105, as shown in Fig. 4, are pressed against two opposed corners 125 of the track 110 and allow the pipe modules 105 to easily roll along the track 110 (see paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mandt by providing the rail with rollers, as taught by Frankel, in order to easily allow the aeration apparatus to move up and down for operation and retrieval of the apparatus (see paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 8, Mandt as modified by Frankel discloses wherein the at least one guide roller is configured to maintain the at least one mounting frame in a position perpendicular to the tank wall when the at least one mounting frame is moved along the central guide rail, as shown in Fig. 3 of Frankel.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandt (US 4,618,426) in view of Frankel (US 2018/0236412) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kurowski (US 2007/0175813).
With respect to claim 9, Mandt as modified by Frankel lacks wherein the at least one guide rail assembly further comprises at least one swivel roller configured to engage around the central guide rail and pivot the at least one mounting frame out of a position that is perpendicular to the tank wall when the at least one mounting frame is positioned above a top elevation of the tank wall.
Kurowski discloses a device supporting a rotating frame for a filtration installation, as shown in Fig. 1, having a rail 1 supported on rollers 2 (swivel roller), as shown in Fig. 1. The roller 2 is capable of pivoting about a pivot axis 3 (see paragraph 0019). This would make it possible to reduce the wear on the support rollers (see paragraph 0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus disclosed by Mandt as modified by Frankel with a swivel roller, as taught by Kurowski, in order to reduce wear on the rollers (see paragraph 0008), and in order to pivot the mounting frame to a desired position.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 recites the claimed subject matter.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 in view of Mandt (US 4,618,426). U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 lacks a control arm connected to the frame and to a hold-down rod. Mandt teaches these limitations and it would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 in order to improve the support of the frame.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 in view of Mandt (US 4,618,426) and further in view of Frankel (US 2018/0236412). U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 as modified by Mandt lacks at least one guide roller. Frankel teaches this limitation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 as modified by Mandt by providing the rail with rollers, as taught by Frankel, in order to easily allow the aeration apparatus to move up and down for operation and retrieval of the apparatus (see paragraph 0034).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 as modified by Mandt and Frankel and further in view of Kurowski (US 2007/0175813). U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 as modified by Mandt and Frankel lacks a swivel roller. Kurowski teaches this limitation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus disclosed by U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,806,680 as modified by Mandt and Frankel with a swivel roller, as taught by Kurowski, in order to reduce wear on the rollers (see paragraph 0008), and in order to pivot the mounting frame to a desired position.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 recites the claimed subject matter.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 in view of Mandt (US 4,618,426). U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 lacks a control arm connected to the frame and to a hold-down rod. Mandt teaches these limitations and it would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 in order to improve the support of the frame.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 in view of Mandt (US 4,618,426) and further in view of Frankel (US 2018/0236412). U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 as modified by Mandt lacks at least one guide roller. Frankel teaches this limitation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 as modified by Mandt by providing the rail with rollers, as taught by Frankel, in order to easily allow the aeration apparatus to move up and down for operation and retrieval of the apparatus (see paragraph 0034).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 as modified by Mandt and Frankel and further in view of Kurowski (US 2007/0175813). U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 as modified by Mandt and Frankel lacks a swivel roller. Kurowski teaches this limitation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus disclosed by U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,433,361 as modified by Mandt and Frankel with a swivel roller, as taught by Kurowski, in order to reduce wear on the rollers (see paragraph 0008), and in order to pivot the mounting frame to a desired position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773