DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 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, it is unclear how the vortex forming elements can be “disposed within” the porous matrix, since the porous matrix is part of the plurality of vortex forming elements. The claim requires the vortex forming elements to each comprise a) a fixed swirler and b) a porous matrix. Therefore, it is unclear how the entirety of the vortex forming elements (the fixed swirler and the porous matrix) can be disposed within just part of the vortex forming elements (the porous matrix).
Regarding claim 2, “said plurality of vortex ports” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, “one or more layers” is unclear. It is unclear what the “one or more layers” is of. Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not the “one or more layers” is a required structural component to the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, “oily matter” should be changed to “oily content” to be consistent with claim 11, upon which the claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan USPN 4,162,906.
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses an apparatus for enhancing the quality of a fluid, comprising a plurality of vortex forming elements (column 2, lines 29-32; column 2, lines 42-46; figures 1-5), each comprising: a) a fixed swirler for imparting a centrifugal force on a moving fluid stream (column 4, lines 29-35; figure 4: separator tube 10 has a vortex generating means 26 affixed to an inner surface 28 of continuous side wall 14 at inlet end 16; vortex generating means 26 includes a plurality of blades 30 radially spaced about a central hub 32); and b) a porous matrix (column 6, lines 22-26: filter element), wherein said vortex forming elements are disposed within said porous matrix (column 7, lines 62-65; the clean air passes through a final stage comprising annular filter element 138 before passing from air cleaner 112 through outlet conduit 118; figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan discloses that the plurality of vortex ports comprise a vortex port array (figure 5; column 6, lines 27-34; figures 3 and 5: separator tubes 10 are aligned in parallel rows).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan discloses that the fixed swirler in each vortex forming element is a helical blade (figure 4; column 4, lines 32-37: vortex generating means 26 includes a plurality of blades 30; see claim 4: helical).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan discloses that the fixed swirler in each vortex forming element is an impeller (figure 4: 30; column 4, lines 32-37).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Sullivan discloses that the porous matrix comprises one or more filtration layers (figure 3: filter layer 138).
Claim 8, as interpreted, is considered a functional limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan discloses a method of enhancing the quality of a fluid, which comprises flowing a fluid through the apparatus of claim 1 (column 1, lines 5-10; column 2, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses that the enhanced quality fluid has a reduced contaminant content (column 2, lines 32-41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan USPN 4,162,906 in view of Vecitis USPN 9,827,517.
Sullivan is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan does not disclose that the one or more layers of said porous matrix comprise at least one of anti-viral, anti-bacterial, absorbent or adsorbent layers. Vecitis discloses a similar invention where such a filtration layer comprises an anti-bacterial layer (see Vecitis column 27, lines 26-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sullivan so that the porous matrix has an anti-bacterial layer, as generally taught by Vecitis, for the purpose of removing biohazards.
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan does not disclose that the enhanced quality fluid has a reduced particulate or oily content. Vecitis discloses a similar method where particulates are removed from the fluid (see Vecitis Abstract; column 39, lines 57-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sullivan to have the filter remove particulates from the fluid, as generally taught by Vecitis, for the purpose of removing such harmful contaminants from the fluid.
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan does not disclose that the enhanced quality fluid has at least one added substance wherein said added substance is provided from said porous matrix. Vecitis discloses adding a substance to the fluid via a porous matrix (see Vecitis column 28, lines 37-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sullivan so that the enhanced quality fluid has at least one added substance wherein said added substance is provided from said porous matrix, as generally disclosed by Vecitis, for the purpose of enhaving quality of effluent fluid, based on the contaminants in the inlet fluid.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Sullivan does not disclose that the reduced particulate or oily matter is silt, oil, chemical pollutants, ions or pathogenic agents. Vecitis discloses a similar invention where bacteria are removed (see Vecitis column 27, lines 26-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sullivan so that bacteria are removed, as generally taught by Vecitis, for the purpose of removing such harmful biohazards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776