DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauch et al. US 2017/0056790.
Claim 1, Brauch teaches a water treatment system comprising: a basin (par 3), a clarifier (1) disposed in the basin, a pair of collection troughs (6) arranged at least partially above the clarifier, at least one cover assembly comprising: a frame coupled to the collection trough and a cover (2) coupled to the frame, the cover being made of a mesh material (fig. 2-9, par 12-16, 19). Brauch does not teach the mesh being nylon. Brauch further teaches the covers may be made of any number of materials including polymer and plastic (par 61). Nylon is a very well known type of polymer/plastic used to make mesh fabric and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3 and 6, Brauch further teaches the frame comprises a rectangular shaped body portion and a pair of flanges (fig. 3-6), each of the pair of flanges extending outwardly form an opposing side of the body portion and being configured to rest on and engage a corresponding one of the pair of collection troughs (fig. 3-6); and the at least one cover assembly comprises a plurality of cover assemblies (fig. 2-9).
Claim 4, Brauch teaches as obvious the system of claim 4 but does not teach the weight of the cover. Brauch teaches the cover being relatively light weight and being retractable by a single person (par. 16-17). The recitation of the cover being 14 lbs. is a recitation of an optimization of the weight of the cover to achieve a light weight cover that is easily manipulable. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 5 recites the cover comprises a logo on a surface of the cover. The recitation of a logo is a recitation of non-functional printed matter included on the cover. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A logo does not provide any additional function to the system and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claim 14, Brauch further teaches a method for treating water comprising: providing the water treatment system according to claim 1, flowing water to the clarifier and collecting clarified water and/or waste material separated from the water by the clarified (par 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauch et al. US 2017/0056790 in view of Hwan et al. KR 10-0864602.
Brauch teaches as obvious the system of claim 1 and further teaches the frame being coupled to the pair of collection troughs where the frame is configured to go between an open and closed position (fig. 2-9) but does not teach the frame being pivotably coupled. Providing a pivoting coupling between a frame of a cover and a trough is a well-known technique as demonstrated by Hwan which allows the cover assembly to be opened and closed (pg. 6). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauch et al. US 2017/0056790 in view of Wiley US 2019/0047884.
Brauch teaches as obvious the system of claim 1 with a plurality of planar inclined sheets (fig. 2-9) but does not teach the sheets being a flexible polymeric material or buoyant members supporting each trough.
Wiley teaches a water treatment system comprising: a basin (32), a clarifier (19) disposed in the basin, a pair of collection troughs (38a, b, c) arrange partially above the clarifier, the clarifier comprises a plurality of planar inclined sheets (12) comprising a flexible polymeric material of polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, PTFE or PVC (par 112), a plurality of vertically oriented supports (14), where a sheet of the plurality of planar inclined sheets is tensioned between the plurality of vertically oriented supports (par 116), a vertically support of the plurality of vertically oriented supports comprises an inlet opening (16) configured to allow liquid to flow therethrough, wherein the plurality of planar inclined sheets are arranged parallel to one another and each sheet is tensioned between a plurality of vertically oriented supports (14) wherein vertically oriented supports tensioning a first sheet of the plurality of planar inclined sheets interlock with adjacent vertically oriented support tensioning a second sheet of the plurality of planar inclined sheets and a pair of buoyant members (68a, b) configured to support each collection trough of the pair of collection troughs (fig. 1-10). The recitation of the various structures of the clarifier is all known in the prior art to Wiley and is a recitation of the substitution of the clarifier of Wiley in place of that of Brauch. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights