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 without traverse of the apparatus (claims 1-10 and 13) in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN 208632262 in IDS with translation) in view of Eijt et al. (US 2007/0256964 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tao teaches a water treatment line comprising: (a) a device for removing suspended solids from liquids comprising: (a-1) a sedimentation tank (4) with a solids collection sector (bottom of tank); (a-2) in said tank a lamellar pack filter (4.1) with sedimentation surfaces inclined with respect to the bottom of said tank; (a-3) in said tank a system for conveying the solids leaving said lamellar pack filter into said collection sector; and (a-4) a device configured to extract the solids from said solids collection sector (sloped bottom and valves at bottom of tank), (b) upstream of said sedimentation tank one or more pre-treatment tanks (2 3) for separating solids by gravity, and(c) metal processing plants (steel rolling workshop), wherein said metal processing plants feed said water treatment line and are located upstream of said device for the removal of suspended solids from liquids and of said one or more pre-treatment tanks (Pages 1-3 of the provided translation).
Tao fails to teach the lamellar pack filter comprises a plurality of adjacent, essentially parallel and inclined tubular profiles. Eijt teaches that sloped plate lamellar packing can come in a variety of different shapes as claimed and provide optimized flow conditions for separation (Figs. 2-4 and [0018]-[0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the sloped plates of Tao to the plurality of adjacent, essentially parallel and inclined tubular profiles of Eijt as they provide more desirable flow conditions.
Regarding claim 3, Eijt teaches that the hydraulic diameter ranges from 1-10 cm overlapping the range claimed (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tao and Eijt do not explicitly state the sedimentation surface but changing the size/proportion would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art to fit the desired treatment capacity and space requirements (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 5, Tao and Eijt do not teach any magnetic elements or surfaces and therefore meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7, it is submitted that the lamellar pack portion would either be integral or modular and one skilled in the art would have found such configurations obvious (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Regarding claim 9, it is submitted that tank (5) or the unlabeled end tank in Fig. 1 of Tao would read on the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Eijt teaches that the flow channels have an inclination of at least 50 degrees (claim 4).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN 208632262 in IDS with translation) in view of Eijt et al. (US 2007/0256964 in IDS) and Marggraff et al. (EP 0559056 in IDS with translation).
Regarding claim 2, Tao in view of Eijt teach the lamellar packing shape can be chosen from a variety of options of shapes and sizes ([0018]-[0021]) but does not specifically state the tubular profile is a V shape. One skilled in the art would have found that due to the variety of shapes considered, the specific shape could not be considered significant based on the teachings of Eijt especially as Marggraff teaches the specific V shape claimed for a honeycombed shaped separator package for settling/sedimentation systems (Figs. 1-2). Therefore, modifying the shape of the lamellar pack filter to V shape would have been an obvious change in shape of known options.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN 208632262 in IDS with translation) in view of Eijt et al. (US 2007/0256964 in IDS) and Weiss (GB 2275210).
Regarding claim 6, Tao fails to teach a skimmer arranged in the upper part of the sedimentation tank. Weiss teaches a similar apparatus for separating various contaminants from waste water from a metal plant wherein the apparatus comprises a sedimentation basin (A) with lamellar packing (12) wherein at the top of the sedimentation basin skimmers are used to remove oil and grease floating on the top of the liquid being treated (pages 7-8). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide oil skimmers as claimed in order to efficiently remove any oil and grease at the top of the liquid being treated in the sedimentation basin.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Tao teaches a filter tank (5) that has rare earth ceramic balls therein. It is unclear based on the Tao description if the filtration media is used to separate solids or if the filter is used for adsorption or coalescing purposes so it is unclear if the tank after the sedimentation tank would read on the claimed exclusion of filter media for separating of solids. Weiss teaches a similar apparatus where the tank after the sedimentation tank includes a tank (B) lacking filter media for separation of solids (Fig. 2). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to replace the filter tank of Tao with the coalescence tank of Weiss as such designs are known and would efficiently treat water from similar sources to a requisite degree without the need for filtration media.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN 208632262 in IDS with translation) in view of Eijt et al. (US 2007/0256964 in IDS) and Schimion et al. (US 5,534,155).
Regarding claim 10, Tao fails to teach a magnetic device for separation as claimed. Schimion teaches that for purification of liquids/water from metal rolling mills, the water can be prepurified via a magnetic device in order to remove metal particles from the water (C2/L29-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a magnetic device in order to separate metal particles from the water from a metal processing plant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777