DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on October 30, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 25-39 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 31 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 34 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) and 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 36 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 35 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.
Claim 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18557976 and claim 3 of copending Application No. 18557976. Although the conflicting claim 33 is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of claim 3. Regarding copending Application No. 18557976, the conflicting claim of 3 requires a pump that is arranged to recirculate the fluid to the conduit of the filter pressure apparatus, 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 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 25, 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 25 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 25, 30-34, 36, 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"), and further view of “Influence of regeneration variables during backwashing treatment into gas-phase after liquid filtration.” Morsch, et al ("Morsch").
Regarding Claim 25, 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, 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 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) .
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 nozzle 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 nozzle 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 separator 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 30, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a bypass system (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) that includes an electronically controlled valve (valve 134, Jackson, Pr 107).
Regarding Claim 31, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. 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 32, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses 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) that communication with outlet of the chamber.
Regarding Claim 33, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a pump (water pump, Jackson, Pr 4) that 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 34, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses an air vent (air management mechanism 1, Hallman, column 4, line 13-16, Figure 2) that 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 36, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. 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 37, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a separator that has a filtering fluid through a sieve structure (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2), allowing the fluid to bypass the sieve structure (bypass line 145 , Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) when the pressure at an inlet of the sieve structure exceeds a predetermined threshold (clean fluid device 8 to reduce the possibility of overwhelming the water removal capability in the fluid regeneration device, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2).
Claims 26, 38, and 39 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 “Pressure-actuated monolithic acrylic microfluidic valves and pumps.” Guevara-Pantoja, et al ("Guevara-Pantoja").
Regarding Claim 26, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a separator with bypass conduit. The combination of references does not disclose a bypass conduit that includes a pressure-activated valve.
Wright discloses a separator that has a bypass conduit (bypass conduit, Wright, Pr 37) that includes a pressure-activated valve (non-return valve, Wright, Pr 37).
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 pressure-actuated valve of Guevara-Pantoja, because the pressure-actuated valve of Guevara-Pantoja improves the sealing of the valve (Guevara-Pantoja, Introduction), pressurization and de-pressurization of fluid, flow redirection that is important in bypass systems (Guevara-Pantoja, Pump design performance).
Regarding Claim 38, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action achieves the separator of claim 25. The separator of Hallman, Jackson, and Wright and motivation for combining references is outlined in paragraphs 36-39 of this office action. The combination of references discloses a fluid that bypasses (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) the sieve structure (fluid regeneration absorption media 135, Hallman, column 5, line 1-3, Figure 2) through a pressure-activated valve (non-return valve, Wright, Pr 37).
Regarding Claim 39, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action achieves the separator of claim 25. The separator of Hallman, Jackson, and Wright and motivation for combining references is outlined in paragraphs 36-39 of this office action. The combination of references discloses a detector for the pressure at the inlet using a sensor (pressure sensor, Wright, Pr 47) and an electronic valve (valve 134, Jackson, Pr 107) in the bypass conduit (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) where the predetermined pressure differential reaches a threshold (Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2).
Claim 27 is 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"), Dyson, et al. U.S. Patent No. 8474091 B2 ("Dyson"), and further view of “Design of a modified low-cost treatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry waste water.” Ahmad, et al ("Ahmad").
Regarding Claim 27, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a separator with bypass conduit. The combination of references does not disclose a gravity bypass tube.
Dyson teaches a separator (filter assembly 128, Dyson, pg 16, line 9) where the bypass conduit (bypass tube assembly 130, Dyson, pg 17, line 2-3, Figure 14(c)) includes a gravity bypass tube (bypass tube 154, Dyson, pg 17, line 2-3, Figure 14(c)).
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 a gravity bypass tube of Dyson, because the gravity bypass tube of Dyson increases the ability to reuse waste water from a laundry unit which reduces the cost of the filtration treatment system (Ahmad, abstract).
Claims 28 and 29 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"), International Publication No. JP 2010254281 A ("Ota"), 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 28, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a separator with bypass conduit. The combination of references does not disclose a pitot tube.
Ota teaches a separator (cleaning machine 73, Ota, pg 18, Pr 7), where the bypass conduit) includes a Pitot tube (flow velocity sensor 461, Ota, pg 2, Pr 2).
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 a the gravity bypass tube of Dyson, because the gravity bypass tube of Dyson increases the ability to reuse waste water from a laundry unit which reduces the cost of the filtration treatment system (Ahmad, abstract).
Regarding Claim 29, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action achieves the separator of claim 25. The separator of Hallman, Jackson, and Dyson and motivation for combining references is outlined in paragraphs 46-49 of this office action. The combination of references discloses a separator (cleaning machine 73, Ota, pg 18, Pr 7), where the bypass conduit includes a venturi (flow velocity sensor 461, Ota, pg 2, Pr 2).
Claim 35 is 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"), and further view of Garrett, et al. U.S. Patent No. 2665646 A ("Garrett ").
Regarding Claim 35, the separator of Hallman and Jackson and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 24-28 of this office action to achieves the separator of claim 25. The combination of references discloses a separator and a bypass conduit. The combination of references does not disclose a separator that has a one-way valve that prevents a fluid that has passed through the bypass conduit from returning to the chamber.
Garrett teaches a separator (separator 24, Garrett, column 3, line 51-57) with a one-way valve (one way valve, Garrett, column 3, line 57-59) that prevents a fluid that has passed through the bypass conduit (bypass line 145, Hallman, column 4, line 40-45, Figure 2) from returning to the chamber (Garrett, column 3, line 57-59).
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 a one-way valve of Garrett, because the one-way valve of Garrett improves the valve by cutting off the flow of fluid (Garrett, column 2, line 25-29).
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