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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on February 04, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that: There is no burden on searching and examining all of the groups in one search. A requirement for restriction/election must provide evidence that there is an undue burden on searching and examining all groups/species together. This is not the case as this application has already had all of the claims searched and examined in one search. This application is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2022/054363, and the International Search and Examination Authority for this application has already searched and examined all of these claims under one search, which conclusively establishes that there is no search burden. Remarks, page 1, filed 02/04/2026.
In response, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because:
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted:
(a) Group I, claim(s) 1-17 drawn to a slurry filter unit.
(b) Group II, claim(s) 18-25 drawn to a method for filtering a slurry.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The “special technical feature” which links Groups I and II is a method for filtering a slurry comprising: (i) providing a filter unit comprising a filter screen, an upper cavity formed above the filter screen, and a lower cavity formed below the filter screen; (ii) injecting pressurized air and water into the lower cavity to produce an aerated water stream; (iii) flowing the aerated water stream through the filter screen into the upper cavity; (iv) introducing unfiltered slurry into the upper chamber of a filter unit; and (v) passing the unfiltered slurry through the filter screen in a countercurrent direction to the aerated water stream to produce a filtrate.
Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1) discloses a method for filtering a slurry (a grey water) (Abstract) comprising (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0092]-[0101]): (i) providing a filter unit comprising a filter screen (80, Fig. 2), an upper cavity formed above the filter screen (a space in the influx pipe 20, Fig. 1), and a lower cavity formed below the filter screen (a space inside the collector 90, Fig. 2) (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]); (ii) injecting pressurized air and water (a nozzle 160, Fig. 2 generates spray that is a mixture of air and water) into the lower cavity to produce an aerated water stream (paragraphs [0080]); (iii) flowing the aerated water stream through the filter screen into the upper cavity (paragraph [0080]); (iv) introducing unfiltered slurry into the upper chamber of a filter unit (paragraph [0077]); and (v) passing the unfiltered slurry through the filter screen in a countercurrent direction to the aerated water stream to produce a filtrate (paragraph [0096]).
The method for filtering a slurry taught by Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1) meets the “special technical feature”.
Since the “special technical feature” linking Groups I-II is disclosed by Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1), the "special technical feature" lacks novelty or inventive step and does not make a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, no single general inventive concept exists and restriction is appropriate.
It is noted herein that the examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the filter unit” in line 8. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the slurry filter unit” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the filter unit” in line 1. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the slurry filter unit” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 13 recites “the filter unit” in lines 2-3. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the slurry filter unit” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the upper cavity of body” in line 2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the upper cavity of the Y-shaped body” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-17 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “from the first to second cavities” in lines 8-9 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “from the upper cavity to lower cavity” in view of the limitation recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the screen openings” in line 3 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “screen openings” or define “screen openings” earlier in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Eckman discloses a slurry filter unit comprising (Fig. 2, it is noted that Fig. 2 share same numerals for the subcomponents functioning similarly; paragraphs [0092]-[0104]):
(i) a Y-shaped body (influx pipe 20, and the collector 90 form a Y-shaped body) having an interior defining an upper cavity (a space between water influx pipe 20 and hangers 94, Fig. 2) and a lower cavity (a space inside the collector 90);
(ii) a filter screen (80, Fig. 2) arranged between the upper and lower cavities;
(iii) an unfiltered slurry inlet (water influx pipe 20 at the right side of hangers 94) fluidly coupled to the upper cavity;
(iv) a waste outlet (water influx pipe 20 at the left side of hangers 94) fluidly coupled to the upper cavity opposite the unfiltered slurry inlet (water influx pipe 20 at the right side of hangers 94) which defines a slurry inlet flow path in the upper cavity; and
(v) a filtered slurry outlet (flow tube to be held by UV carrier 100) fluidly coupled to the lower cavity (a space inside the collector 90);
wherein the slurry filter unit is configured to pass slurry through the filter screen from the first to second cavities in a direction transverse to the slurry inlet flow path (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0092]-[0097]).
In regard to claim 2, Eckman discloses the slurry inlet flow path is linear such that the slurry flows parallel to a length of the filter screen (Fig. 2, the linear path along the influx pipe 20 traversing the filter screen 80).
In regard to claim 7, Eckman discloses the filter screen (85, Fig. 2) is arcuately curved from side to side in configuration defining a concave side facing the upper cavity and a convex side facing the lower cavity (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 8, Eckman discloses the upper cavity (a space between water influx pipe 20 and hangers 94, Fig. 2) is angled downwards relative and obliquely to a horizontal reference plane (a horizontal reference x-axis) such that the slurry travels across the filter screen in a same obliquely angled flow path (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 9, Eckman discloses the unfiltered slurry inlet (water influx pipe 20 at the right side of hangers 94) is disposed at one end of the upper cavity and a waste outlet (water influx pipe 20 at the left side of hangers 94) is disposed at an opposite end thereof (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 10, Eckman discloses the upper cavity is configured so that oversized particles entrained in the slurry mixture which are too large to pass through the screen openings in the filter screen flow in a linear path across the concave upper surface of screen to the waste outlet (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0092]-[0097]).
In regard to claim 12, Eckman discloses the unfiltered slurry inlet (water influx pipe 20 at the right side of hangers 94) and the filtered slurry outlet (flow tube to be held by UV carrier 100) each define a respective centerline which is parallel to each other (a portion of water influx pipe 20 and the flow tube to be held by UV carrier 100 are parallel as shown in Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 13, Eckman discloses the slurry filter unit is oriented such that the upper cavity is positioned above the lower cavity when the filter unit is in use and the filter screen extends horizontally between the upper and lower cavities (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 16, Eckman discloses the lower cavity (a space inside the collector 90) has an oblique frustoconical shape such that the lower cavity narrows moving downwards in direction from an upper portion adjacent the filter screen towards the filtered slurry outlet located at a bottom of the lower cavity.
Eckman discloses every limitation recited in claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13 and 16,
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holzmann et al. (US 10,688,430 B2, hereinafter “Holzmann”).
In regard to claim 3, Eckman discloses a nozzle (160, Fig. 2) is used for cleaning the filter screen (80, Fig. 2) thereby removing oversize particles (paragraphs [0108]-[0110]).
But Eckman discloses does not explicitly disclose the presence of pressurized air inlet and air and water collectively forming a bubbler for clearing oversize particles from the filter screen.
However, Holzmann discloses cleanable filters and methods of cleaning filters (Abstract). Holzmann discloses the pressurized cleaning fluid comprising air, water, detergent, degreaser, or a combination thereof is used for cleaning filters (col. 9, lines 13-17).
It is noted that both the Eckman and Holzmann references direct a filter unit to be cleaned using cleaning fluid such as water and air.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the slurry filter unit of Eckman, in view of Holzmann, to provide the presence of pressurized air inlet and air and water collectively forming a bubbler for clearing oversize particles from the filter screen as claimed, this is because pressurized cleaning fluid comprising air, water, detergent, degreaser, or a combination thereof is used for cleaning filters as taught by Holzmann (col. 9, lines 13-17).
In regard to claims 4-6, Eckman discloses the nozzle (160, Fig. 2) is sprayed such a way that water flow upwards through the filter screen from the lower cavity to the upper cavity (Fig. 2). As set forth above, Eckman, in view of Holzmann, addresses the feature of “presence of pressurized air inlet and air and water collectively forming a bubbler for clearing oversize particles from the filter screen”. Therefore, the recitations of claims 4-6 is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Eckman, in view of Holzmann.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1), and as evidenced by Ball (US 2008/0196.161 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Eckman discloses the unfiltered slurry inlet (water influx pipe 20 at the right side of hangers 94) can be made from two or more sections which may be connected with a flexible coupling (26, Fig. 2). Examples of a flexible coupling include rubber grommets, rubber bands or sleeves, and other flexible couplings for plumbing as are known in the art (paragraph [0079]). The feature of flexible tubing coupling comprising a plurality of radially deformable elongated fingers with longitudinal slits circumferentially separating the fingers in plumbing is well-known as evidenced by Ball.
Claims 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckman (US 2015/0151223 A1).
In regard to claims 14 and 15, Eckman discloses the source of grey water (i.e., slurry) are obtained from residential or industrial site which is reasonably expected to comprises water and soil material. Consequently, the slurry filter unit taught by Eckman is reasonably expected to applicable to filtering agricultural sample comprising water and soil.
Claim 1 is about an apparatus of slurry filter unit. It has long been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.”); In re Michlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958) (“It is well settled that patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations and not upon statements of function.”).
In regard to claim 17, Eckman discloses a nozzle (160, Fig. 2) is used for cleaning the filter screen (80, Fig. 2) thereby removing oversize particles (paragraphs [0108]-[0110]). It would be obvious to the skilled person who wants to observe the filtering process in the apparatus of Eckman to choose a transparent material for influx pipe 20. The use of transparent water pipe depending on desired purpose is a well-known practice in the art as evidenced by Dahan et al. (US 11,772,952, please refer to col. 6, line 62 thru col. 7, line 3; col. 24, lines 1-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights