DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on October 30, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-20 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 1-3 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 24 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 6 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 26 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 7 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 27 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 8 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 28 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 9 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 29 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 10 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 30 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 13 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 31 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 14 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 32 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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 20 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 34 of copending Application No. 18557975 (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.
Claims 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of copending Application No. 18557975. Although the conflicting claims 4-5 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 25. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claim of 25 requires a drain separator and a pump to drain the separator which is covered by claims 4 and 5.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24, 31, 32 and 38 of copending Application No. 18557975. Although the conflicting claim 11 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 24, 31, 32 and 38. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claims of 24, 31, 32 and 38 require a cylindrical chamber, sieve structure coaxial cylinder in the chamber, and a cleaning nozzle in which the limitations of the claims are covered by claim 11.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33 and 38 of copending Application No. 18557975. Although the conflicting claim 17 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 33 and 38. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claims of 33 and 38 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 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant is asked to rewrite claims 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 to remove the duplication of the word “of” for the sake of clarity and grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hallman (US 7308808 B2) (appears on the PTO-892).
Regarding Claim 1, 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.
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).
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 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 separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 30 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 1. The combination of references discloses 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, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 47 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 3. The combination of references discloses a pump that is the drainage pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 47 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 3. The combination of references discloses a pump that is a separate recirculation pump (pump 25, Hallman, column 6, line 33-37, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 47 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 3. The combination of references discloses 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, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 47 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 3. 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 8, using the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 47 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 3. The combination of references discloses 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 separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 32 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 10. The combination of references discloses 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 separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 32 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 10. 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 14, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 32 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 10. 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 18, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 36 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 17. The combination of references discloses 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 separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 42-46 of this office action. The separator of Hallman is outlined in paragraph 56 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 18. The combination of references discloses a fluid detector that is a float switch (float switch, Jackson, Pr 136).
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