DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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 2-5, 12 and 13 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, upon which Claims 3-5 and 12-13 are dependent, recites the limitation “the plurality of drainage holes”, which lacks established antecedent basis. See that “a plurality of drain passages” is established in Claim 1. This discrepancy renders Claims 2 and its dependents further indefinite, as the claim is unclear if the holes recited in Claim 2 should be considered the passages of Claim 1; if this is to be assumed, then Claim 2 is unclear with what happens to the passages between the top plate and the bottom plate. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the passages converge into the center hole towards the bottom plate/check valve. Applicant is advised that further art may be applied based on the amendments that rectify this issue, in particular if the amendments vary from the examiner’s assumption.
Claims 15-16, 18 and 19 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 15 (upon which Claims 16 and 18-19 are dependent) recites “the plurality of drainage holes”, which is indefinite for the same reasons as detailed above with respect to Claim 2 (see that Claim 15 is not dependent on Claim 2). The claims will be treated similarly to Claim 2 and its dependents.
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)(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, 6-11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andreas et al. (herein referred to as “Andreas”, WO 2022/263250).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Andreas discloses a filter assembly (Abstract; filter housing with first and second filter screens), comprising:
a grate portion having a plurality of drain passages therein (Abstract; Figure 2; Description Para. [0010]-[0029]; first filter screen 21 with first filter chamber 25, drainage passages both in screen to permeate 15 and sealing ring 23 fitted with compression means 40 and grid 41);
a check valve portion having a first end connected to the grate portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; sealing ring 23 with outlet opening to second screen 22/grid 41); and
a filter portion connected to a second end of the check valve portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; second screen 22).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the filter portion includes a filter housing with an upper flange having a plurality of mounting apertures for mounting the filter housing to a lower flange of the check valve portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; filter chamber 22 formed by upper flange 12 and lower flange of sealing ring 23).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 6, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the filter housing includes a conical shaped mesh body extending from the upper flange (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0015]; see that filter shapes may be conical).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 7, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein a gasket is disposed between the upper flange of the filter housing and the lower flange of the check valve portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; gasket in seal 23).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 8, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the gasket includes a hole therethrough and a plurality of mounting holes (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; hole for grid 40; mounting holes for both first and second filter screens).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 9, upon which Claim 10 is assumed to be dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein a filter cartridge is received in the filter housing and includes an upper flange that fits within the hole of the gasket (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0015]; see that second screen is attached to maintenance cap 117, effectively forming a cartridge in the chamber; attached to seal 23).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 10, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the filter cartridge includes a conical shaped mesh filter body reinforced by a frame structure (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0015]; shape of mesh may be conical; reinforced by attachment to housing walls).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the check valve portion includes a valve member that seats against a valve seat to prevent backflow through the check valve portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0035]; compression means 40 and grid 41).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 14, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas further discloses wherein the filter portion includes a filter housing with an upper flange having a plurality of mounting apertures for mounting the filter housing to a lower flange of the check valve portion (Figure 2; Para. [0010]-[0033]; filter chamber 22 formed by upper flange 12 and lower flange of sealing ring 23).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas et al. (herein referred to as “Andreas”, WO 2022/263250) in view of Wokas, US Pat Pub. 2004/0175236.
Regarding instant Claim 20, Claim 1, upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. Andreas discloses the grate portion, the check valve portion and the filter portion (see Claim 1 rejection above).
However, the reference is silent on the portions being disposed in a hole in an earth retaining structure.
Wokas discloses a tank for service stations in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing a check valve portion and a grate portion (Abstract; Paragraph [0092]; Paragraph [0094]). Wokas further discloses such a device may be placed in a hole in an earth retaining structure in order to safely process fluids underground (Abstract; Figure 2; Paragraph [0092]; Paragraph [0094]; structure is retained by earth, also prevents spills into earth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the grate portion, the check valve portion and the filter portion of Andreas to further be disposed in a hold in an earth retaining structure as taught by Wokas because Wokas discloses such devices may be used in the safe processing of fluids underground (Wokas, (Abstract; Figure 2; Paragraph [0092]; Paragraph [0094]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wildermuth, US Pat Pub. 2020/0054973, also provides a conical filter element (Abstract; Figure 3). Cantrell, US Pat Pub. 2011/0186145, provides another device that provides a filter effect and check valve in an underground structure (Abstract; Paragraph [0014]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 02/02/2026