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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 03AUG2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b), 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04MAY2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 03AUG2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The fact that the secondary reference (DUCASSE) does not teach a reinforcing rib structure does not render it unobvious to support a sliding part either close to the axis of rotation or at the periphery of the rotatable disk. Both are valid means to supporting the rotatable disk, which is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
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) 17-21,23-24,26-28,31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALKANEN (US 2834474) in view of DUCASSE (US 4303522).
Regarding claims 17,31, JALKANEN teaches a strainer apparatus (title, Figs.) comprising:
a filter disk (Fig. 6 #1’); and
a tank (Fig. 6 #18’) in which the filter disk is mounted so as to be rotatable about a rotational axis (C3/L65-68),
wherein the filter disk comprises:
a screening plate having a plurality of openings, the screening plate being substantially circular (see e.g. Figs. 3,6 #1);
a supporting structure having an annular section (supporting walls, Fig. 7 #19’);
a stationary support (e.g. Fig. 6 #8’); and,
a sliding element (see point where the stationary part meets the rotatable part; Annotated Fig. 6).
JALKANEN does not teach the sliding element is arranged on an outer fastening contour of the filter disk. However, DUCASSE teaches a continuous separation system (title, Figs.) including a rotatable filter screen disc assembly (abstract, Figs. 1,3 #64), wherein at the bottom of disc (Fig. 3 #66) at the periphery of which are attached a number of bearing rollers (Fig. 3 #73; C3/L63-66) as a means to support the rotatable filter disc assembly on a stationary support.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of JALKANEN to have a sliding element arranged on an outer fastening contour of the filter disk in order to either alternatively support or additionally support the rotatable filter disc on the stationary support. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Annotated Fig. 6
PNG
media_image1.png
406
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, JALKANEN teaches the annular section forms a stiffening ring having a circular shape (see circular supporting walls, Fig. 4 #19).
Regarding claim 19, JALKANEN teaches the annular section extends concentrically circular supporting walls, (Fig. 4 #19) around a rotational axis (Fig. 2 #10) of the filter disk.
Regarding claim 20, JALKANEN teaches the supporting structure has a radial section (see linear walls of Fig. 4 #19) that extends along a radial direction of the filter disk.
Regarding claim 21, JALKANEN teaches the annular section and the radial section are connected to one another at a connecting section in a non-displaceable manner (Fig. 4 #19 appears to be integral).
Regarding claims 23,26-28, JALKANEN teaches the annular section includes a plurality of annular sections (outer and inner circular sections or contours; Fig. 4 #19), with each of the plurality of annular sections forming a stiffening ring of a plurality of stiffening rings, the plurality of stiffening rings being spaced apart from one another along a radial direction of the filter disk.
Regarding claim 24, JALKANEN teaches the supporting structure includes a plurality of radial sections extending along a radial direction of the filter disk (see linear walls of Fig. 4 #19), the plurality of radial sections being uniformly offset from one another by an angle (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALKANEN (US 2834474) in view of KUNDURACI (WO 2012005711).
Regarding claim 22, JALKANEN does not teach the annular section and the radial section each have a connecting recess. However, KUNDURACI teaches a single plate in modular plansifters and metal applications on frames (title, Figs.) including a sieving frame (Fig. 18 #22) comprising supports (Fig. 18 #24) with recesses for connecting the supports to form a connecting section, which provides a durable product (P2/L11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of JALKANEN to provide connecting recesses for the support structure in order to provide a durable frame as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALKANEN (US 2834474) in view of HANSEN (US 20030146174).
Regarding claim 25, JALKANEN teaches round holes (see annotated Fig. 6 above), but does not teach the pore size. However, HANSEN teaches a filtration method and apparatus (title, Figs) including a filter having a pore size according to for example the type of suspension to be filtered and the expectations of the level of dry matter content of the suspension after separation (par. [0096]), which the pore size may be e.g. 1-2 mm (par. [0097]), which anticipates the claimed range of 0.5-2mm.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pore size of the screen of JALKANEN to be in the claimed range in order to optimize the pore size for the type of suspension to be filtered as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday ~08:00~15:00.
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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights