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 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. Claims 32 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 32 and 33 recites the limitation "the pump" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24, to which they depend, do not require a pump; a pump is introduced in claim 31, and it is possible that claims 32 and 33 are intended to depend from claim 31. 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. Claims 24 , 25, 30, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Electro-Mecanique (GB 991305 A) in view of K oller (DE 3835326 A1). With respect to claim 24 , Electro-Mecanique teaches various embodiments of separator suitable for separating solid material from a fluid having e.g. a chamber (1) with an inlet (2) and outlet (5), a sieve structure forming a permeable barrier between inlet and outlet (6), (8), and including a filter pressure regeneration apparatus comprising a conduit and nozzle assembly for directing cleaning fluid towards the outlet side of the sieve structure (9) [pg. 2, left column; Fig. 2]. Additionally, the chamber includes a channel formed of the chamber wall and the sieve structure with the inlet located at an end , such that fluid flows through the channel and material dislodged by the cleaning nozzle is swept towards the other end away from the inlet e.g. into a sludge chamber (11) [pg. 3, left column; Fig. 5]. The sieve structure has a circular cross-section [Fig. 2]. Electro-Mecanique essentially differs from the instant claims in that they do not explicitly recite that the inlet is arranged to direct fluid tangentially into the chamber onto the sieve structure or to the presence of a wall on one side of the inlet such that fluid is guided circumferentially to force dislodged material to the outer wall. The embodiment of e.g. [Fig. 5] features an enlarged annular inlet space but does not particularly require tangential inlet flow or swirl-inducing structures or the like. However, Koller teaches filters including strainer basket structures (4) and which teaches providing a tangential inlet (2) and a wall on a side of said inlet, baffle plate (11) [Figs. 1-2, pg. 2], where the tangential inlet and baffle plate serve to enhance the tangential flow of fluid being fed into the device which works to drive heavier contaminants to the walls of the device via cyclone action [Abs]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the design of Electro-Mecanique to include a tangential inlet and a tangential-flow-enhancing wall such as the inlet and baffle taught by Koller to gain the benefit of enhancing the inlet flow behavior to generate cyclone action, thereby enhancing separation of contaminants as suggested by Koller, particularly because Electro-Mechanique already intends for the design to drive dislodged contaminants from the backwash process away from the filter and the inlet through control of the flow patterns. With respect to claim 25 , as above Electro-Mecanique teaches a trap (11) for collecting sludge in a subchamber via the flow channel. With respect to claim 30 , the nozzle structure (9) directs flow perpendicularly against the inner surface of the filter [Fig. 2]. With respect to claim 37 , Electro-Mecanique teaches an operational process consistent with the claim requirements i.e. filtering and regenerating using the nozzle [pg. 2 lines 62-91]. With respect to claim 38 , the nozzle sweeps the interior via a rotating action [pg. 2 lines 52-61]. Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Electro-Mecanique in view of Koller , further in view of Hecking (EP 3213803 A1) . Electro-Mecanique teaches as above but is silent to a plurality of nozzles, including a set of nozzles configured to provide propulsion using a tangential vector thereby driving rotation of the nozzles. However, Hecking teaches a backflush filer for water treatment [Abs] and teaches that a set of flat nozzles may be formed in an impeller section such that backflowing water may be ejected at a suitable angle relative to a tangent direction such that the structure is driven to rotate, and that this design is simple and durable and does not require any additional action during backwashing [pg. 3, fourth paragraph]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Electro-Mecanique to include a set of drive nozzles similar to those taught by Hecking because, as in Hecking, this allows for backwash water to also be used to drive rotation for cleaning elements, and this arrangement is simple and durable. Claims 26, 27, 29, and 31- 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Electro-Mecanique in view of Koller , further in view of Cao et al (US PGPub 2017/0072343 A1) . With respect to claims 26, 27, and 29 , Electro-Mecanique teaches as above but is silent to provision of a plurality of nozzles, or to the nozzles specifically being rotated specifically by a motor, or to nozzles being arranged opposite each other on a central tube. However, Cao teaches self-cleaning filter designs which employ liquid injection nozzles for filter cleaning [Abs] . The nozzles are connected to a drive shaft and motor which causes the nozzles to rotate and create a spray pattern for cleaning the filter element [0031]. The nozzles are arranged on opposite sides of a central axis and connected to a common central tube [0029-0030] although the exact number and arrangement can be adjusted to design preferences. Though Cao designs the nozzles for external spray, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the configuration could readily be adapted for internal spray more consistent with the design of Electro-Mecanique by swapping the position of the spray and suction nozzles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple nozzles e.g. arranged in opposing pairs off a central axis because, as in Cao, this provides a useful arrangement for a rotating spray cleaning arrangement for filter elements. See additionally MPEP 2143 I.B; a simple substitution of one known nozzle pattern for another, providing predictable results in the field of filter cleaning, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, as in Cao, it would have been obvious to provide a motor to drive the rotation when needed, because Electro-Mecanique already desires that the nozzle rotates for cleaning, and simply doesn’t specify the mechanism employed, such that looking to the art for useful mechanisms represents an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claims 31-33 , Electro-Mecanique teaches as above but is silent to pumps for draining the chamber or for driving fluid for cleaning. However, Cao teaches various pumps in the system may be provided for these roles; a drain pump may be provided for draining a drainage chamber [0026] and a high pressure pump may drain filtrate from the filtrate chamber and return it for washing via the injection nozzles [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide suitable pumps to the system of Electro-Mecanique to allow for proper drainage and conveyance of fluid, e.g. drainage fluid (with debris and the like) and/or filtrate, as in Cao, in particular to allow for the use of e.g. filtrate in a pressurized manner for cleaning via the nozzles. Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Electro-Mecanique in view of Koller , further in view of Fulmer et al (US PGPub 2014/0298590 A1). Electro-Mecanique teaches as above but does not explicitly teach sensors for determining a backwash demand, bypass conduits for bypassing the filter, or integration into a washing machine. However, Fulmer teaches a washing machine appliance (i.e. for laundry treating) which includes a backwashable pre-filter [Abs]. The system may include a bypass conduit (58) for bypassing the prefilter [0019]. The prefilter backwash may be triggered based on sensed values e.g. for flowrate, determining that the filter is clogged to a certain threshold [0036-0037], which may employ the bypass conduit and associated valves and pumps [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Electro-Mecanique to employ it in useful application such as a washing machine because, as in Fulmer, backwashable filter structures are useful for prefiltering wash water in such machines. Further, providing bypass conduits and sensors which enable detection of filter conditions, bypass, and triggering of backwash would have been obvious to allow the system to clean the filter when necessary, as suggested by Fulmer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3469 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777