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 arguments filed 5/08/2026 in traversal of the restriction requirement dated 2/09/2026 are persuasive, and the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/09/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Rea et al (WO 2022/246501 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rea et al in view of Humphrey et al (US PGPub 2021/0053072 A1).
Rea teaches systems and methods for treating hydrovac mud (recovering clarified water and byproducts from hydrovac waste or other slurry waste) which include providing structures and process steps for unloading excavated mud into the process, either via an intermediate vessel or directly onto a screen receiving system (receiving unit and unloading waste from the hydrovac truck thereto) [pg. 6 lines 9-26], providing structures and process steps for dewatering portions of the mud that have been screened, including the use of a dewatering cyclone and dewatering screen to remove larger solid particles (processing unit and transferring washed waste from the processing unit for separating aggregates and water) [pg. 9 lines 16-25], and thereafter separating fine solids from water via a filter press or the like from a dirty water tank (clarifying unit for removing ultrafine solids and transferring raw water to the clarifying unit and removing ultrafine solids) [pg. 11 lines 3-14].
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system and process of Rea therefore anticipate the claimed system and process. Alternatively, if the instant claimed clarifying unit and associated step are intended to require e.g. a gravitational sedimentation rather than a filter press as in Rea, the claimed process would nevertheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Humphrey. Humphrey teaches systems and processes for handling of slurry e.g. from hydrovac trucks [Abs, 0003] which may include, after preliminary loading/screening, a set of cyclone separators [0063-0064]; the overflow from such cyclones which contains water and fine solids may then be further treated using a settlement tank to allow reuse of the water. Sedimentation and related clarification technologies are well known in the art for removal of solids from water streams and would have been obvious substitutions for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement according to their well known and expected behavior.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rea et al in view of Humphrey et al.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Rea teaches that the initial screen for receiving the mud may include water sources such as jets or hoses for spraying the mud to clean, assist with retention, or control water levels in the slurry [pg. 8 lines 20-30]. Rea does not specify providing angled walls, though the section may generally have adjustable angles for screen operation; regardless, see MPEP 2144.04 B; changes in shape of a container represent obvious engineering choices for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rea et al in view of Humphrey et al, further in view of Humphrey II et al (US PGPub 2022/0194837 A1).
Rea teaches as above including transferring slurry from a receiving space to further processing e.g. cyclone separators. However, Rea is silent to the use of an auger for movement of any streams.
However, Humphrey II teaches a portable hydrovac waste treatment system and process [Abs] and teaches that a screw conveyor which is removable or foldable may be employed for moving slurry in the system e.g. conveying dewatered slurry to a collection device [0041]. It would have been obvious to include a similar screw conveyor/auger in the modified process and system of Rea to allow for movement using a structure which is removable or foldable for facilitating portability.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rea et al in view of Humphrey et al and Humphrey II et al, further in view of Chunbo et al (CN 109020152 A).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Rea is silent to the provision of a rotating drum screen and associated structures for separating oversized materials in the system and process.
However, Chunbo teaches a mobile mud dewatering system [Abs] and teaches providing as a primary coarse filter screen, a rotary drum separator with screen basket, rotary motor, conveyor shaft, frame, cleaning tooth plate, and the like [0011]. This increases efficiency as the same motor can drive multiple elements e.g. both the drum and conveyor [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such a separator in the system and process of Rea for the same reason i.e. to advantageously combine screening and conveying in an energy efficient manner.
Chunbo is silent to the presence of wash bars; however, as above, Rea already teaches providing spray nozzles or the like for upstream screen steps e.g. to manage clogs and wetting and the like, and it would have been obvious to implement them into a drum embodiment for a similar purpose.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, as above Chunbo teaches a conveyor shaft connected to the drum separator and, regardless, as above the use of conveyors, augers, and similar would have been obvious over the teachings of Rea and Humphrey II.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 15, and 16, Rea teaches feeding separated material from upstream to a first set of hydrocyclones as above (see e.g. (24) in [Fig. 1]) and, thereafter, collecting underflow on a shaker screen (32) to separate water which may be collected for various purposes, including clarification and reuse within the system or elsewhere (via dirty water tank (28), separators, and reuse tanks e.g. (20)).
With respect to claims 9, 10, 17, and 18, Rea is silent to a second set of hydrocyclones as part of the water clarification system but, as above, Humphrey teaches multiple sets of hydrocyclones, including a second set for water purification which may then feed to a sediment removing device e.g. a settling tank [0063-0064]. It would have been obvious to include them to facilitate fine separation as in Humphrey.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights