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 1-17 are pending:
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany, on 06/15/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102021115442 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 8-9, 14 and 16-17 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.
Claims 8-9, 14 and 16-17 recite “and/or”; it is unclear what it intended by the slash (‘/’) notation thus rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase “and/or” is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the limitation requires: (i) A alone, (ii) B alone, or both A and B together. Further, nested “and/or” statements in claims 9 and 16-17 obscure the metes and bounds of the claim thus rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277).
Regarding claim 1, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter (two-stage automatic filtration system, see Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a filter housing (body 10), a first filter screen (coarse filter 70 inherently screens), a second filter screen (fine filter 80 inherently screen), an inlet opening (corresponds to opening to inlet pipe 30), and an outlet opening (corresponds to opening to outlet pipe 40),
wherein:
- the filter housing encloses a cavity (corresponds to interior of the body 10) and has at least the inlet opening and the outlet opening (see Figs. 1-2),
- the first filter screen is arranged in the cavity (see Figs. 1-2),
- the first filter screen at least partially delimits a first filter chamber (corresponds to chamber/compartment comprising coarse filter 70) and the second filter screen at least partially delimits a second filter chamber (corresponds to chamber/compartment comprising fine filter 80),
- the inlet and outlet openings communicate with each other through the first filter screen such that a fluid can flow from the inlet opening through the first filter screen to the outlet opening (see Figs. 1-2), thereby defining a direction of the fluid flow,
- the first filter chamber has a retentate outlet (corresponds to path comprising brush 130, collector 110, suction nozzle 20 and washing pipe 50),
- the second filter screen is arranged in the cavity of the filter housing (see Figs. 1-2), the inlet and outlet openings communicate with one another through the second filter screen (see Figs. 1-2) and the retentate outlet is arranged on a side of the second filter screen that faces the fluid flow (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1, wherein the filter housing has a maintenance opening that is closed with a maintenance cover (corresponds to cover/top, fastened by bolts, adjacent to fine filter 80), and wherein the second filter screen is fastened to the maintenance cover (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1, wherein the first filter chamber and the second filter chamber are arranged in series with respect to a retentate flow (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Sandikcioglu teaches a filter according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the second filter screen at least partially delimits a second filter chamber (see Fig. 2), wherein the second filter chamber has a corresponding second filter chamber inlet opening which is attached to a retentate outlet (see Fig. 2), whereby a retentate passage is formed from the first filter chamber into the second filter chamber (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 5, wherein the fluid filter comprises a closure (corresponds to suction nozzle 20, collector arrange and cleaning cycle structure) for the second filter chamber inlet opening, the closure is movable between an open position and a closed position (“[w]hen this contamination reaches a certain level, the differential pressure sensor (60), which is connected to the measuring pipes (130), starts the cleaning process by sensing that”, see pg. 3), the closure in the closed position closing at least a section of the second filter chamber at least in a retentate- tight manner (implicit).
Regarding claim 10, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1, further comprising an agitator (brush 130) mounted movably relative to the first filter screen (“cleaning of the coarse filter (70) is performed by the fact that a brush (130) centered by a brush centering flange (140) rotates and sweeps coarse particles accumulated on the surfaces”, see pg. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 10, further comprising bristles (brush inherently has brush in order to sweep coarse particles on a surface) attached to the agitator (i.e. brush 130) to point in a direction of the first filter screen (see Fig. 2), wherein at least some of the bristles bear against the first filter screen (“cleaning of the coarse filter (70) is performed by the fact that a brush (130) centered by a brush centering flange (140) rotates and sweeps coarse particles accumulated on the surfaces”, see pg.), and wherein paths of movements of the bristles are defined by trajectories (“cleaning of the coarse filter (70) is performed by the fact that a brush (130) centered by a brush centering flange (140) rotates and sweeps coarse particles accumulated on the surfaces”, see pg. 3 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 11, wherein at least a part of a fluid flow facing side of the second filter screen is arranged outside the trajectories of the bristles (see Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Lingen (US 2019/0240600).
Regarding claim 3, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1.
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the first filter screen and the second filter screen are arranged parallel with respect to the direction of the fluid flow.
In a related field of endeavor, Lingen teaches a filter device (see ABS) comprising filter screens (filter inserts 27) arranged parallel with respect to the direction of the fluid flow (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter screens of Sandikcioglu by rearranging them parallel with respect to the direction of the fluid flow as disclosed by Lingen because this configuration provides a stacked structure having the benefit of a low-cost assembly (Lingen, ¶7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Hidde (DE 2010032394).
Regarding claim 7, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 6.
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the closure is biased into the closed position, when the maintenance cover is closed, the closure is transitioned into the open position by a connecting piece of the fluid filter, when the maintenance cover is opened, the connecting piece releases the path of the closure to transition the closure into the closed position.
In a related field of endeavor, Hidde teaches an air separator (see ABS) comprising a closure biased into the closed position (“safety valve is a spring-loaded ball valve, which the venting channel closes when the valve cover is removed to prevent water leakage and pressure losses during valve cover maintenance”, see pg. 6), when the maintenance cover is closed, the closure is transitioned into the open position by a connecting piece of the filter (“the valve cover 81 close to the pot 2 screwed - retaining ring 75 is firmly attached to flat gasket 84 on, is upper the valve lifter 87 of the lid 81 the ball valve 73 and thus the venting channel 74 open and generated from the volume flow of air or micro bubbles can through the vent hole 86 the valve cover 81 escape”, see pg. 7 and Fig. 3(a) of closed position), when the maintenance cover is opened, the connecting piece releases the path of the closure to transition the closure into the closed position (“the valve cover 81 close to the pot 2 screwed - retaining ring 75 is firmly attached to flat gasket 84 on, is upper the valve lifter 87 of the lid 81 the ball valve 73 and thus the venting channel 74 open and generated from the volume flow of air or micro bubbles can through the vent hole 86 the valve cover 81 escape”, see pg. 7 and Fig. 3(b) of open position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the maintenance cover Sandikcioglu by configuring closure biased into the closed position, when the maintenance cover is closed, the closure is transitioned into the open position by a connecting piece of the fluid filter, when the maintenance cover is opened, the connecting piece releases the path of the closure to transition the closure into the closed position as disclosed by Hidde because this configuration prevents water leakage and pressure losses during valve cover maintenance (Hidde, see pg. 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Ponomarenko (USPN 5,804,070).
Regarding claim 8, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1,
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the fluid filter has at least one movable compression means configured to be moveable from a neutral position into a compression position, the compression means deforming the second filter screen in the compression position and thereby compressing the second filter chamber and/or separating at least one section of the second filter chamber from at least one other section of the second filter chamber.
In a related field of endeavor, Ponomarenko teaches a filter press for filter suspensions (see ABS) comprising a fluid filter has at least one movable compression means (compression plate 2 also referred to as a pressure application plate) configured to be moveable from a neutral position into a compression position (“a pressure application plate (2) movably mounted in said press frame”, see claim 1), the compression means deforming the second filter screen in the compression position and thereby compressing the second filter chamber and/or separating at least one section of the second filter chamber from at least one other section of the second filter chamber (“neighboring filter plates 4 which can be compressed so that the plates 4 contact each other…all filter plates 4 are interconnected”, see C5/L55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the maintenance cover Sandikcioglu by at least one movable compression means as disclosed by Ponomarenko because this device allows for neighboring filters to be interconnected (Ponomarenko, see C5/L55-65).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Ponomarenko (USPN 5,804,070) in view of Deurloo (USPN 10,334,839) and further view of Valle (USPN 9,192,279).
Regarding claim 9, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1,
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the fluid filter has at least one movable compression means configured to be moveable from a neutral position into a compression position, the compression means deforming the second filter screen in the compression position and thereby compressing the second filter chamber and/or separating at least one section of the second filter chamber from at least one other section of the second filter chamber, the maintenance cover has a locking mechanism which at least inhibits opening of the maintenance cover, wherein the locking mechanism is in operative connection with the closure for the second filter chamber inlet opening and/or the compression means, and a movement of the closure into the closed position and/or a movement of the compression means into the compression position releases the locking mechanism.
In a related field of endeavor, Ponomarenko teaches a filter press for filter suspensions (see ABS) comprising a fluid filter has at least one movable compression means (compression plate 2 also referred to as a pressure application plate) configured to be moveable from a neutral position into a compression position (“a pressure application plate (2) movably mounted in said press frame”, see claim 1), the compression means deforming the second filter screen in the compression position and thereby compressing the second filter chamber and/or separating at least one section of the second filter chamber from at least one other section of the second filter chamber (“neighboring filter plates 4 which can be compressed so that the plates 4 contact each other…all filter plates 4 are interconnected”, see C5/L55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the maintenance cover Sandikcioglu by at least one movable compression means as disclosed by Ponomarenko because this device allows for neighboring filters to be interconnected (Ponomarenko, see C5/L55-65).
In a related field of endeavor, Duerloo teaches removable catch basin filter (see ABS) comprising a maintenance cover having a locking mechanism (locking mechanism 214) which at least inhibits opening of the maintenance cover, wherein the locking mechanism is in operative connection with the closure for the filter chamber inlet opening (see Fig. 2).
In a related field of endeavor, Valle teaches container system (see ABS) comprising a movement of the closure into the closed position releases the locking mechanism (“lock member 35 which is cooperatively structured and disposed to engage cover interlock 59 of cover container 50, when cover container 50 is disposed in an operative engagement with base container 20 in a closed configuration”, see C/7/L28-33; “lock member 35 disengages from cover interlock 59”, see C7/L50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the maintenance cover Sandikcioglu by incorporating the lock member of Dueroloo and configuring a movement of the closure into the closed position releases the locking mechanism as disclosed by Valle because this device and configuration serves to securely yet releasably retain the cover in the closed configuration during storage and/or transport (Valle, see C7/L30-40).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Senda (USPN 4,233,159).
Regarding claim 13, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 11,
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the bristles are made of plastic and have a fiber diameter d smaller than or equal to dmax, wherein dmax/mm
∈
{0,14; 0,12; 0,1; 0,09; 0,08; 0,05}, and wherein d
≥
5
μ
m.
In related field of endeavor, Senda teaches a solid-liquid separation element and apparatus (see ABS) comprising bristles made of plastic (polytester bristles, see C6/L14-20) and have a fiber diameter d smaller than or equal to dmax, wherein dmax/mm
∈
{0,14; 0,12; 0,1; 0,09; 0,08; 0,05}, and wherein d
≥
5
μ
m (polyester bristles having a diameter of not more than 0.20 mm, for example 0.03 – 0.15 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range and also sub-millimeter equivalent to 30-150
μ
m therefore the Senda a diameter above the lower limit value of 5
μ
m).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 30-150
μ
m overlaps the claimed range of 5-140
μ
m. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bristles of Sandikcioglu by selecting polyester bristle diameter in the range of 0.03-015 mm as disclosed by Senda because the diameter facilitates effective cleaning of fine slits and polyester mitigates biological degradation (Senda, see C6/L15-30).
Regarding claim 14, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1.
Sandikcioglu does not teach that the first filter screen and/or the second filter screen comprises at least one mesh with a mesh width mi1 or m2, wherein u
≤
mi
≤
o and u
∈
U = {20m,30m,40m,45m,50m} and o
∈
0 = {50m,55m,60m,70m,80m,90m,100m} and i
∈
{1, 2}.
In related field of endeavor, Senda teaches a solid-liquid separation element and apparatus (see ABS) comprising the filter screen comprises at least one mesh with a mesh width mi1 or m2, wherein u
≤
mi
≤
o and u
∈
U = {20m,30m,40m,45m,50m} and o
∈
0 = {50m,55m,60m,70m,80m,90m,100m} and i
∈
{1, 2} (table 1 shows slit width of 0.1 mm which falls within the claimed range and has a sub-millimeter value equivalent to 100
μ
m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mesh width of Sandikcioglu by selecting a mesh width of 0.1 mm (100 micron) as disclosed by Senda because the size of the mesh is beneficial for optimizing the S.S. content of treated water (Senda, see Table 1).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandikcioglu (WO 2021/086277) in view of Eglmeier (EP 3816336).
Regarding claim 15, Sandikcioglu teaches a fluid filter according to claim 1,
Sandikcioglu does not teach housed in a washing machine housing of a washing machine, wherein the washing machine housing comprises at least one washing water drain connection, at least one fluid basin with a pump sump and at least one pump.
In a related field of endeavor, Eglmeier teaches a laundry care device with filter element (see ABS) comprising a fluid filter (filter element 105) housed in a washing machine housing of a washing machine (laundry care device 100 which can be a washing machine), wherein the washing machine housing comprises at least one washing water drain connection (tub drain, see pg. 3 and “outlet of a tube of the laundry care appliance”, see pg. 6), at least one fluid basin with a pump sump (i.e. tub of the laundry care device) and at least one pump (implicit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid filter of Sandikcioglu by housing said fluid filter within a washing machine as disclosed by Eglmeier because washing machines (also referred to a laundry care device) require filtering to remove contaminants such as lint, dirt or dust adsorbed into washing liquid (Eglmeier, see pg. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Sandikcioglu and Eglmeier teach a fluid filter according to claim 15, wherein Washing machine - the inlet opening (Eglmeier, “an inlet…of a tube of the laundry care appliance”, see pg. 6) is connected to the pump sump (Eglmeier, i.e. tub of the laundry care device) in a fluid-tight manner (Eglmeier, implicit)…
Regarding claim 17, Sandikcioglu and Eglmeier teach a fluid filter according to claim 16, - there is at least one non-return (Eglmeier, “Figures 7A and 7B Elements, not shown, which enable the particles to penetrate easily but make it difficult to escape, such as flaps, barbs and/or rod-shaped elastic non-return valves, can be improved”, see pg. 3) valve connected to an outlet side of the first filter screen and/or the second filter screen (Eglmeier, implicit), said at least one non-return valve (Eglmeier, “Figures 7A and 7B Elements, not shown, which enable the particles to penetrate easily but make it difficult to escape, such as flaps, barbs and/or rod-shaped elastic non-return valves, can be improved”, see pg. 6) configured to only allow a flow from the outlet side of the first filter screen and/or the second filter screen to the suction side of the pump (Eglmeier, implicit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights