DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on October 30, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 24-38 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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 26 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 27 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 7 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 28 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 29 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 9 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 30 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 10 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 31 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 32 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 14 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 34 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 20 of copending Application No. 18557976 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-5 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claim 25 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 4-5. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claims of 4 and 5 require a drain separator and a pump to drain the separator which is covered by claim 25.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 24, 31, 32 and 38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claims 24, 31, 32 and 38 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 11. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 11 requires a cylindrical chamber, sieve structure coaxial cylinder in the chamber, and a cleaning nozzle in which the limitations of the claim are covered by claim 24, 31, 32 and 38.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 33 and 38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claims 33 and 38 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 17. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 17 requires a separator comprising a filter pressure apparatus for dislodging filtered material for a sieve, fluid detector, and filter pressure regeneration apparatus. The limitations of the claim are covered by claim 33 and 38.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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 24-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Hallman, et al. U.S. Patent No. 7308808 B2 ("Hallman") in view of Jackson, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20040094470 A1 ("Jackson"), and further view of “Influence of regeneration variables during backwashing treatment into gas-phase after liquid filtration.” Morsch, et al ("Morsch").
Regarding Claim 24, Hallman discloses a separator (fluid processing mechanism 4, Hallman, column 4, line 4-6, Figure 2) suitable for separating solid material from a fluid (particulate filter 125, Hallman, column 4, line 64-66, Figure 2), the separator comprising: a chamber with an inlet (inlet valve 101, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) and an outlet (outlet valve 106, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2), a sieve structure (molecular sieves 135, Hallman, column 5, line 17-27, Figure 2) forming a permeable barrier between the inlet and the outlet to filter the fluid, and a pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) in fluid (working fluid 165, Hallman, column 4, line 16-18, Figure 2) communication with the chamber, where the separator further comprises a filter pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) for dislodging filtered material from the sieve structure (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2).
Hallman discloses a filter pressure regeneration apparatus. Hallman does not disclose a conduit and a nozzle assembly having at least one cleaning jet directed towards the outlet side of the sieve structure and wherein the pump is arranged to recirculate the filtered fluid to the conduit of the filter pressure regeneration apparatus, where the sieve structure has a circular cross-section, and wherein a channel is formed between the chamber and the sieve structure such that in use the fluid is guided circumferentially around the sieve structure through the channel.
Jackson teaches a conduit and a nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) having at least one cleaning jet directed towards the outlet (outlet, Jackson, Pr 4) side of the sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4) and wherein the pump (water pump, Jackson, Pr 4) is arranged to recirculate (diverted, Jackson, Pr 4) the filtered fluid (filtered water, Jackson, Pr 4) to the conduit of the filter pressure regeneration apparatus (Jackson, Pr 4), where the sieve structure has a circular cross-section (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4), and wherein a channel is formed between the chamber and the sieve structure such that in use the fluid (water, Jackson, Pr 112, Figure 18f) is guided circumferentially around the sieve structure through the channel (screen filtration unit 228, Jackson, Pr 112, Figure 18f).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the separator of Hallman with the nozzle assembly of Jackson, because the nozzle assembly improves filtration system which is compact, space efficient and straight forward to install and maintain (Jackson, Pr 132). The filter pressure regeneration of Jackson to reduces the flow resistance of the filter which is influenced by backwashing pressure as a result of the characteristic surface forces (Morsch, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a pump that is a water pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) arranged to also drain the separator (drain tray 73, Hallman, column 4, line 16-18, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 26, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a restriction is provided in a conduit (drain conduit 70, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2) downstream from the pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2), where the aperture (water drain valve 260, Hallman, column 8, line 45-53, Figure 2) of the restriction is set to ensure that a preset amount of filtered fluid is recirculated into the filter pressure regeneration apparatus and an amount of the filtered fluid is drained (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 27, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses an air vent (air management mechanism 1, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2) is provided in a conduit (drain conduit 71, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2) between the pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) and the filter pressure regeneration apparatus to introduce air into the conduit (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 28, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a separator that has an air pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2) located between the pump and the filter pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) to introduce air into the conduit and to drain the separator (air management mechanism 1, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 29, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a pump that is a positive displacement pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 30, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a pump is a centrifugal pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 31, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) comprises a plurality of cleaning nozzles that are rotatable around the central axis of the sieve structure (rotor nozzles 23, Jackson, Pr 66).
Regarding Claim 32, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) is rotated by propulsion nozzles arranged to direct a stream of fluid having a vector that is tangential to the circumference of the sieve structure (Jackson, Pr 68).
Regarding Claim 33, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a sensor (optical turbidity sensor 140, Hallman, column 6, line 19-21, Figure 2) where the filter pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135 in the regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 6, line 15-19, Figure 2) is arranged to be activated in accordance with the output from the sensor.
Regarding Claim 34, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a bypass conduit (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) is provided between the inlet and the outlet to provide an alternative route for fluid in the event that the flow of fluid is impeded (Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 35, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a washing machine (enclosure 230, Hallman, column 9, line26-30) with a separator as claimed in claim 24 (Hallman, column 9, line26-30).
Regarding Claim 36, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 29-33 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 24. The combination of references discloses a method of operating a separator by filtering fluid through a sieve structure (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2), operating a pump to pressurize the filtered fluid (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 37, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 45 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 36. The combination of references discloses a pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2) that is operated to drain (drain conduit 70, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2) the separator (fluid processing mechanism 4, Hallman, column 4, line 4-6, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 38, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 45 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 36. The combination of references discloses a pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) is operated to recirculate the filtered fluid to a pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) that is arranged to spray (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) the filtered side of the sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4) with cleaning fluid to dislodge debris from the unfiltered side of the sieve structure (Jackson, Pr 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779