DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on October 30, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 32-46 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 38 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) and claim 31 of copending Application No. 18557979 (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 39 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 33 of copending Application No. 18557979 (reference application) and claim 31 of copending Application No. 18557979 (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 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 18557975 and claim 25 of copending Application No. 18557981. Although the conflicting claim 31 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 24 and 25. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claim of 24 requires a separator suitable for separating solid material including a separator comprising: a chamber with an inlet and an outlet, a sieve structure forming a permeable barrier between the inlet and the outlet to filter the fluid, the sieve structure thus having an inlet side for unfiltered fluid and an outlet side for filtered fluid, the separator further has a filter pressure regeneration apparatus, a nozzle assembly having at least one cleaning element directed towards the outlet side of the sieve structure, the sieve structure a channel is formed between the chamber, which is covered by claim 32.
Regarding copending Application No. 18557981, the conflicting claim of 25 requires a separator suitable for separating solid material including a separator comprising: a chamber with an inlet and an outlet, a sieve structure forming a permeable barrier between the inlet and the outlet to filter the fluid, the sieve structure thus having an inlet side for unfiltered fluid and an outlet side for filtered fluid, the separator further has a filter pressure regeneration apparatus, a nozzle assembly having at least one cleaning element directed towards the outlet side of the sieve structure, the sieve structure a channel is formed between the chamber, which is covered by claim 32.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 18557975. Although the conflicting claim 33 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 24. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claim of 24 requires a sensor in the separator, which is covered by claim 33.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claim 35 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 18. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 18 requires a reservoir, chamber, and sensor, which is covered by claim 35.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claim 36 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 19. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 19 requires a sensor and float switch, which is covered by claim 36.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claim 39 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 31. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 31 requires a pump that recirculates the filtered fluid to the conduit of the filter pressure regeneration apparatus, which is covered by claim 39.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 35 of copending Application No. 18557975 and claim 36 of copending Application No. 18557979. Although the conflicting claim 41 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claims 35 and 36. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claim of 35 requires a washing machine as a separator, which is covered by claim 41. Regarding copending Application No. 18557979, the conflicting claim of 36 requires a washing machine as a separator, which is covered by claim 41.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 45 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 38 of copending Application No. 18557975. Although the conflicting claim 45 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 38. Regarding copending Application No. 18557975, the conflicting claim of 38 requires a recirculation pump to recirculate fluid to the pressure regeneration apparatus, which is covered by claim 45.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) by the description in the specification.
Regarding Claim 32, suitable for separating solid material from a fluid is interpreted as suitable for separating solid material from a fluid if all components recited in the body of the claim are taught or rendered obvious by the prior art.
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.
The term “suitable for” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable for” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The separator that separates the solid material from a fluid is rendered indefinite by the use of "suitable for."
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 32, 35, 36, and 38-46 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 32, 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 has 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. The separator has 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), where the filter pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) has a conduit
where the filter pressure regeneration apparatus fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) is arranged to be fed from a cleaning fluid source. The separator has a sensor arranged to sense a state of the separator where the cleaning fluid source is arranged to be activated in accordance with the output from the sensor (optical turbidity sensor 140, Hallman, Column 6 line 19-21).
Hallman does not teach a sieve structure having an inlet side for unfiltered fluid and an outlet side for filtered fluid, nozzle assembly having at least one cleaning jet for directing fluid towards the outlet side of the sieve structure. The sieve structure has a circular cross-section where a channel is formed between the chamber where the fluid is guided circumferentially around the sieve structure through the channel.
Jackson discloses a sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4) having an inlet side for unfiltered fluid and an outlet side for filtered fluid (outlet pipe, Jackson, Pr 4), a nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) having at least one cleaning jet for directing fluid towards the outlet (outlet, Jackson, Pr 4) side of the sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4) where the sieve structure has a circular cross-section (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4), where a channel is formed between the chamber and the sieve structure such that in use the fluid (water, Jackson, Pr 112, Figure 18f) that 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 separator of Jackson, because the nozzle assembly of Jackson 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 34, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a sensor that is located at the outlet (optical turbidity sensor 140, Hallman, Column 6 line 19-21).
Regarding Claim 35, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a reservoir (storage tank 35, Hallman, column 6, line 19-21, Figure 2) that is provided below the chamber (regeneration cartridge 141, Hallman, column 10, line 37-41, Figure 2) and the sensor (float switch, Jackson, Pr 136) located in the reservoir (tank housing, Jackson, Pr 136).
Regarding Claim 36, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a sensor that is a float switch (float switch, Jackson, Pr 136).
Regarding Claim 38, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly, Jackson, Pr 4) that has a plurality of cleaning nozzles that are rotatable around the central axis of the sieve structure (rotor nozzles 23, Jackson, Pr 66).
Regarding Claim 39, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses 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 40, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a separator (filter unit 1, Jackson, Pr 101where the cleaning fluid source is mains water (Water entering the tank must pass through the filtration unit in order to leave the tank 112 through the outlet 118, Jackson, Pr 101) controlled by an electronic valve (valve 134, Jackson, Pr 101).
Regarding Claim 41, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a washing machine (enclosure 230, Hallman, column 9, line26-30) with a separator (Hallman, column 9, line26-30).
Regarding Claim 42, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a separator that filters a fluid through a sieve structure (mesh, Jackson, Pr 4), detecting at least one state of the separator (optical turbidity sensor 140, Hallman, Column 6 line 19-21), and performing an operation in dependence on the detected state of the separator (Hallman, Column 6 line 19-28).
Regarding Claim 43, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a separator (filter unit 1, Jackson, Pr 78) that have pressure differential (pressure gradient between one side of the partition 511, Jackson, Pr 78) between the filtered side and the unfiltered side of the sieve structure (mesh 13, Jackson, Pr 78).
Regarding Claim 44, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses an operation that operates 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).
Regarding Claim 45, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 50 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 44. The combination of references discloses an operation that includes operating a recirculation pump (regeneration pump 115, Hallman, column 4, line 18-20, Figure 2) to recirculate a portion of the filtered fluid to the pressure regeneration apparatus (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 46, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraph 50 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 44. The combination of references discloses an operation that includes bypass system (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) and an electronic valve (valve 134, Jackson, Pr 107).
Claims 33 and 37 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"), “Influence of regeneration variables during backwashing treatment into gas-phase after liquid filtration.” Morsch, et al ("Morsch"), Wright, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20130014843 ("Wright"), and further view of “A novel remote measurement and monitoring system for the measurement of critical washing parameters inside a domestic washing machine.” Ward, et al ("Ward").
Regarding Claim 33, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The combination of references discloses a separator and a sensor but the combination of references does not teach a sensor located at the inlet.
Wright discloses a sensor that is located at the inlet (pressure sensor, Wright, Pr 47).
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 and Jackson with the sensor located at the inlet of Wright, because the pressure sensors in a washing machine can be used to improve the measurement of shear stress and flow velocity through dynamic pressure (Ward, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 37, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 36-40 of this office action to achieve the separator of claim 32. The separator of Hallman, Jackson, and Wright and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 53-56 is disclosed in this office action. The combination of references of separator of Hallman, Jackson, and Wright discloses a sensor that is a pressure sensor (pressure sensor, Wright, Pr 47).
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