DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 are amended.
This Action is Made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the newly add limitations are not disclosed by the copending application 18/557,975. The applicant is correct that copending application 18/557,975 does not claim a separator body containing the chamber therefore, the statutory double patenting rejection is now replaced with a non-statutory obviousness type provisional double patenting rejection. The newly added limitation is disclosed by Hallman, as previously cited, and it would have been obvious to place the chamber within the separator body of Hallman.
The applicant argues that Hallman and Jackson do not disclose a separator having a body, a drain pump located in the body and an air inlet to allow air into the separator. Specifically, the applicant argues that there is no suggestion that the regeneration pump of Hallman should or could be located in the regeneration cartridge of Hallman. This argument is not persuasive because the regeneration cartridge of Hallman is not equivalent to the separator body of Hallman. The separator body of Hallman is equivalent to the fluid regeneration device 7 of Hallman. Although Hallman does not disclose that the regeneration pump 115 (drainage pump as claimed) is located within the fluid regeneration device it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the pump of Hallman within the fluid regeneration device (separator body) because the pump transports fluid within the fluid regeneration device and it is a simple rearrangement of parts without changing the function pump (see col. 4 lines 16-20). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The applicant argues that the absorption media 135 of Hallman is not a “permeable barrier between the inlet and the outlet”. This argument is not persuasive at least because Hallman teaches that the absorption media can be a membrane separator which as a permeable barrier (see col. 5 lines 12-16).
The applicant argues that Hallman does not teach the drainage pump as claimed because the regeneration pump of Hallman does not empty the separator unit “so the unit can be located, for example, below the soil-pip water line”. This argument is not persuasive because it is directed to limitations that are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., emptying so the unit can be located below the soil-pipe water line) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only requires the drainage pump “for draining the separator unit”. The separator unit is the device as a whole and not limited to the separator body or the chamber, further the claims do not limit where the material is drained to or what is being drained. As the regeneration pump drains the working fluid it drains the separator unit.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/557,975 in view of Hallman et al (USPN 7,308,808) .
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose separator unit suitable for separating solid material from fluid from a washing machine, the separator comprising: the separator body containing a chamber with an inlet connected to the separator inlet and an outlet connected to the separator outlet, a sieve structure forming a permeable barrier between the inlet and the outlet to filter the fluid, wherein the separator body further includes a drainage pump connected to the outlet of the chamber for draining the separator unit (see claim 15).
The claims do not disclose a separator body having a separator inlet for connecting to an outlet of the washing machine and a separator outlet for connecting to a soil pipe or an air inlet.
Hallman teaches a separator unit comprising a separator body (fluid regeneration device) having a separator inlet for connecting to an outlet of the washing machine and a separator outlet for connecting to a soil pipe (se fig. 2) and an air inlet (air intake of air management ) connected to the separator inlet (connected to the inlet through the working fluid device) to allow air into the separator (see fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 2-20:
The all the limitations of claims 2-20 are disclosed by claims 15-30 of the copending application.
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 1-20 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 Claim 1:
The claim states “to allow air into the separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the separator” and it is not clear if “the separator” is referring to the separator unit, the separator body, the separator inlet, or something else.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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(s) 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallman (USPN 7,308,808).
Regarding Claim 1, Hallman discloses a separator unit suitable for separating solid material from fluid from a washing machine, the separator comprising: a separator body (fluid regeneration deice 7) (see col. 3 lines 42-44, fig, 2) having a separator inlet for connecting to an outlet of the washing machine and a separator outlet for connecting to a soil pipe (what the inlet and the outlet connect to are the intended use of the inlets and outlets, not structural features of the inlet and outlet as they are inlets and outlets they can be connected to a washing machine and soil pipe) (see fig. 2); a chamber (regeneration cartridge) with an inlet connected to the separator outlet (inlet valve 101, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) and an outlet connected to the separator 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 drainage pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) connected to the outlet of the chamber for draining the separator unit (drains the working tank which is part of the separation unit) (see col. 4 line 15-22) and wherein an air inlet (air intake of air management ) connected to the separator inlet (connected to the inlet through the working fluid device) to allow air into the separator (see fig. 1).
Hillman does not teach that the drainage pump is included in the separator body. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the pump of Hallman within the fluid regeneration device (separator body) because the pump transports fluid within the fluid regeneration device and it is a simple rearrangement of parts without changing the function pump (see col. 4 lines 16-20). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Hallman discloses a pump is a positive displacement pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Hallman discloses a pump is a centrifugal pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Hallman discloses a trap is provided comprising an opening in the base of the channel to a sub- chamber (regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 6, line 15-19, Figure 2), where the accumulating filtered material can be collected (storage tank 35, Hallman, column 6, line 19-21, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Hallman discloses a chamber (regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) has a closed top (leak proof double inlet valves assembly 101, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) and bottom (leak proof double outlet valves assembly 106, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Hallman discloses a sieve structure (fluid regeneration absorption media 135 located inside the regeneration cartridge 141 located inside the fluid regeneration device 7, Hallman, column 4, line 48-51, Figure 2) has an opening at the top to relieve pressure (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Hallman discloses a separator further comprising a filter pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135 in the regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 6, line 15-19, Figure 2) for dislodging filtered material from the sieve structure, where a fluid detector is provided, and where the filter pressure regeneration apparatus is arranged to be activated in accordance with the output from the fluid detector (optical turbidity sensor 140, Hallman, column 6, line 19-21, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Hallman discloses a bypass conduit (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) that 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).
Claims 2-8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 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 2, Hallman discloses a 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) from the filter pressure regeneration apparatus (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.
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).
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 3: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 1, wherein a 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.
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 3, wherein a pump that is the drainage pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 3, wherein a pump that is a separate recirculation pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 3, wherein 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 7: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 3, wherein 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 8: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 3, wherein 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 11: The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 1, wherein a cylindrical chamber and the sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4) is a coaxial cylinder within the chamber and wherein a wall is-provides to one side of the inlet such that the fluid is guided around the sieve structure through a channel such that filtered material is dislodged by the wash water from the cleaning nozzle accumulates on the side of the wall away from the inlet (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4).
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 10, wherein 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 14, The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 10, wherein 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 18, The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 17, wherein a reservoir (storage tank 35, Hallman, column 6, line 19-21, Figure 2) is provided below the chamber (regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) and the fluid detector (float switch, Jackson, Pr 136) is located in the reservoir (tank housing, Jackson, Pr 136).
Regarding Claim 19 The combination of references discloses the separator of clam 18, wherein a fluid detector that is a float switch (float switch, Jackson, Pr 136).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
