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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 6500344 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a filtration system (abstract, figs. 1-3) comprising:
A filtration vessel (REF 14, see “filtering drum”, C2/L6-22) configured to be disposed in a first interior of a containment vessel (see REF 12, fig. 1), wherein a portion of a wall of the filtration vessel comprises a porous mesh (REF 18, fig. 3, see “filter gauze”, C2/L6-22), the porous mesh configured to:
Facilitate migration of a liquid portion of a suspension stored in the containment vessel into a second interior of the filtration vessel (interior of REF 14, C2/L41-46);
Block migration of a solid portion of the suspension into the second interior (C2/L41-46); and
An extraction system (REF 30, 31, fig. 1, see “outlet”, C2/L23-28) configured to extract the liquid portion from the second interior of the filtration vessel (see “outlet 31 for the filtrate”, C2/L23-28).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a system wherein a height (from REF 30 – REF 32) is greater than a width of the filtration vessel (i.e. diameter of the drum), the filtration vessel configured to couple to an interior surface of the containment vessel (via REF 32, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses an alternate embodiment (figs. 5-6) comprising a filtration vessel (REF 14) having an exterior porous mesh (see “strainer plate with perforations”, C3/L59 – C4/L10) configured to exclude particles from an interior of said vessel, the alternate embodiment further comprising an extraction system having a pump (REF 75, see “filtrate pump”, C4/L11-42) and a tube fluidly coupled to the pump (see fluid connection at REF 60, fig. 5), wherein an end of the tube is disposed in the second interior of the filtration vessel (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses an assembly comprising a containment vessel (REF 12) configured to receive a suspension of fluid (via REF 34) and the filtration system recited above.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ball, US 4439323 (Ball).
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not disclose a system comprising a controller having one or more processors and a sensor configured to provide a signal indicative of a level of the liquid portion inside the filtration vessel. However, Ball discloses a filtration system (abstract, fig. 4) comprising a filtration vessel (REF 10) having a mesh portion (REF 28), an interior space for filtrate, a level sensor (REF 68, 70, 72, C7/L56 – C8/L2) for indicating the level of filtrate within the filtration vessel, and a controller for receiving a signal from the level sensor (see “switch assembly 67”, C7/L56 – C8/L2).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lee to include the level sensing system described in Ball in order to prevent accidental overflow (Ball, C7/L61 – C8/L2).
While Lee (in view of Ball) does not disclose the controller comprising a processor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to broadly provide a processing device for control configurations since it has been held that providing an automated or computerized means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section III).
Regarding claim 5, Ball further discloses the system controller configured to receive a signal from the sensor and instruct an extraction system (REF 60) to extract the liquid from an interior of the filtration vessel (C7/L24 – C8/L2).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Boner et al., US 7223347 (Boner).
Regarding claim 6, while Lee discloses an interior cleaning system (REF 52, fig. 2, C3/L7-17) for the filtration vessel, Lee does not disclose that the cleaning system comprises a pump, a tube coupled to said pump, and a nozzle coupled to the tube, the nozzle disposed in the second interior of the filtration vessel. However, Boner discloses a filtration vessel (REF 40, 50, figs. 1-2) having a mesh portion (REF 30), an interior portion (REF 40), and a cleaning system comprising a pump (see “blower”, C8/L65-66), a tube (REF 90) fluidly coupled to the pump, and a nozzle (terminus of REF 90 within REF 40) disposed in the interior portion of said filtration vessel.
At the time of invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lee to utilize a cleaning system as described in Boner since it has been shown that the air scouring and media circulation technique is effective to efficiently clean filtration media while reducing the volume of backflushing fluid (Boner, C9/L7-39).
Regarding claim 7, Boner further discloses the nozzle is configured to disburse a liquid onto the mesh portion to facilitate cleaning of the mesh portion (C8/L65 – C9/L21).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 8, while Lee discloses the mesh portion having an opening size of 500 microns (C3/L25-33) and recognizing potentially smaller opening sizes providing improved separation (C4/L53-57), Lee does not disclose the mesh size ranging from 2 – 300 microns. However, it would have been no more than obvious to modify the mesh size according to the desired level of filtration since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. mesh size as it relates to size exclusion) involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part B).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Korzeniowski, US 2010/0270218 (Korzeniowski).
Regarding claim 10, Lee is relied upon in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 set forth above. Lee does not disclose the containment vessel including the elements of claim 10. However, Korzeniowski discloses a filtration assembly (abstract, fig. 1) comprising a containment vessel (REF 2) having a first inlet in a first top portion of a first side wall of the said containment vessel, and a diffuser (REF 14, see “distribution pipe”, ¶ 0033) having a plurality of nozzles (see apertures of REF 14, fig. 1) configured to disperse a suspension in a first interior of the containment vessel.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lee to include the inlet, diffuser, and nozzle system described in Korzeniowski since it has been shown that generally providing fluid distribution systems in a filtration assembly is an effective means of evenly distributing a fluid along a filtration media within a containment vessel.
Regarding claim 11, Korzeniowski further discloses a filtration assembly comprising a manifold (REF 4) formed in a first bottom portion of the first side wall, wherein the manifold is configured to receive a first gas configured to facilitate displacement of a second gas disposed above a suspension within an interior of the containment vessel (¶ 0039, 0044).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ball et al., US 3826370 (Ball) and Gibson et al., PCT/EP22/61492. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is relying on the national stage entry of PCT/EP22/61492, hereinafter referred as US 2024/0238704 (Gibson).
Regarding claim 12, Lee does not disclose an assembly comprising a scale system configured to weight the solid portion of the suspension within the first interior of the containment vessel, the scale having one or more sensors configured to output a signal indicative of a weight, a mass, or a combination thereof. However, Ball discloses a filter assembly (abstract, figs. 1-2) comprising a scale system (REF 61, fig. 1, C5/L65 – C6/L15) configured to weight a solid portion of a suspension within an interior of a containment vessel, the scale having one or more sensors configured to output a weight (see “weight sensor”, C6/L41-55).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Lee to include the scale system described in Ball in order to provide further system control indicating system capacity and/or a signal to activate a filtrate pump to extract filtered fluid (C6/L56-C7/L5).
Lee (in view of Ball) does not disclose a user interface to receive and display the weight provided by the scale. However, Gibson discloses that it is common to include user interfaces in filtration systems for the purposes of displaying sensor data (¶ 0136).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lee (in view of Ball) to include a display system as described in Gibson in order to provide a means for displaying relevant and pertinent information to a user.
Regarding claim 13, Ball further discloses the scale system (REF 61, fig. 1) is distinct from the containment vessel (REF 14), where a first perimeter of the containment vessel matches a second perimeter enclosed by the scale system (figs. 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights