DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 were filed with the amendment dated 01/20/2026. Claims 4-6 and 12-14 were cancelled.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-3 and 7-11) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14, directed to the unelected invention (Invention II) were cancelled on 01/20/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first pig launch and recovery apparatus” in claim 8 and “second pig launch and recovery apparatus” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specifications describes a pig launch and recovery apparatus in paragraphs [0061] to [0064] and Figs 1 and 1A.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “one filter unit inline the recirculation loop” (line 8) should be amended to state: “one filter unit inline in the recirculation loop” to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least one filter unit inline the recirculation loop” (line 9) should be amended to state: “at least one filter unit inline in the recirculation loop” to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 7-11 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.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “for use within a flushing system for a water supply system having a plurality of sections including water mains, pipes, hydrants and valves” (lines 1-3) renders the claim indefinite. The cited phrase is a statement of intended use and in the preamble. However, the flushing system is further defined in lines 3-10. Therefore, it is not clear if the elements in the cited phrase are required.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “for use within a flushing system for a water supply system having a plurality of sections including water mains, pipes, hydrants and valves” (lines 1-3) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if each section of the plurality of sections must have water mains, pipes, hydrants, and valves, or just some of the sections have the water mains, pipes, hydrants, and valves.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “a section” (lines 3-4) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “a section” is part of the “plurality of sections” in line 2 or a different section. It is not clear what is being required by the phrase.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “including the section while the section” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the section” is referring to “a section” of lines 3-4 or a different section from the “plurality of sections” of line 2. The scope and meaning is not clear.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “first valve” in line 11 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the first valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “first valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “second valve” in line 15 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the second valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “second valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “third valve” in line 20 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the third valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “third valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “fourth valve” in line 24 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the fourth valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “fourth valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “first flow control valve” in line 27 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the first flow control valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “first flow control valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “second flow control valve” in line 30 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the second flow control valve is part of the “valves” of line 3 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “second flow control valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 3.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “for use with a water supply system having a plurality of sections including water mains, pipes, hydrants and valves” (lines 1-2) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if each section of the plurality of sections must have water mains, pipes, hydrants, and valves, or just some of the sections have the water mains, pipes, hydrants, and valves. These elements are in the preamble and, as written, it is not clear if they are required, and if they are required what elements are required for each section, if any.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “a section” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “a section” is part of the “plurality of sections” in line 2 or a different section. It is not clear what is being required by the phrase.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “including the section while the section” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the section” is referring to “a section” of line 3 or a different section from the “plurality of sections” of line 2. The scope and meaning is not clear.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “first valve” in line 14 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the first valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “first valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “second valve” in line 18 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the second valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “second valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “third valve” in line 23 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the third valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “third valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “fourth valve” in line 28 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the fourth valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “fourth valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “first flow control valve” in line 31 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the first flow control valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “first flow control valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
With regard to claim 7, the phrase “second flow control valve” in line 34 renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the second flow control valve is part of the “valves” of line 2 or a different valve. For purposes of examination, the “second flow control valve” will be considered different from the “valves” of line 2.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 8-11 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “a first flow control valve located proximate to a terminal end of the first portion of the first flow conduit and selectively movable between an open orientation and a closed orientation; and f) a second flow control valve located proximate to a terminal end of the first portion of the second flow conduit and selectively movable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein when the first flow control valve, the second flow control valve, the first valve, and the second valve are each in their respective open orientation, and the third valve and the fourth valve are in their closed orientation, the water flows in a forward flow direction in the recirculation loop, wherein when the first valve and the second valve are in their closed orientation, and the first flow control valve, the second flow control valve, the third valve, and the fourth valve are each in their respective open orientation, the water flows in a reverse flow direction in the recirculation loop, and wherein when the first flow control valve and the second flow control valve are in their closed orientation the water does not flow within the flow manifold” (claim 1) or “a first flow control valve located proximate to a terminal end of the first portion of the first flow conduit and selectively movable between an open orientation and a closed orientation; and vi) a second flow control valve located proximate to a terminal end of the first portion of the second flow conduit and selectively movable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein when the first flow control valve, the second flow control valve, the first valve, and the second valve are each in their respective open orientation, and the third valve and the fourth valve are in their closed orientation, the water flows in a forward flow direction in the recirculation loop, wherein when the first valve and the second valve are in their closed orientation, and the first flow control valve, the second flow control valve, the third valve, and the fourth valve are each in their respective open orientation, the water flows in a reverse flow direction in the recirculation loop, and wherein when the first flow control valve and the second flow control valve are in their closed orientation the water does not flow within the flow manifold” (claim 7) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are: U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0100599 (“Altegoer”) and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0332984 (“Pearcy”). However, neither Altegoer nor Pearcy teach or suggest each and every claimed recitation.
Altegoer discloses a flow manifold for a flushing system (see fig 2) with a first point (15a), a second point (15b), a pump (2), filter (1), first flow conduit (14b), first valve (4), second flow conduit (14a), second valve (3), first reverse flow conduit (17a), third valve (18a), second reverse flow conduit (17b), fourth valve (18b), first flow control valve (5), and a second flow control valve (6). However, when the first and second flow control valves (5, 6), and first and second valves (4, 3) are open and third and fourth valves (18a, 18b) are closed, the water will not flow in a forward direction in the recirculation loop. The closure of third and fourth valves (18a, 18b) prevent the flow of fluid/water. Furthermore, when the first and second valves (4, 3) are closed and the first and second flow controls valves (5, 6) and third and fourth valves (18a, 18b) are open, the water will not flow in a reverse direction.
It would not have been obvious to modify Altegoer to arrive at the claimed invention without improperly changing the principle of operation of the reference or without improper hindsight reasoning.
Pearcy discloses a flow manifold for a flushing system (see Figs 1-2) with a pump (26), a first point (40a), a second point (40b), a filter (24a, 24b), 1st valve (36), second valve (42), and additional valves (46, 26, 38, 66, 58). However, Pearcy fails to teach or suggest the reverse flow conduits as required with valves in the required locations. Furthermore, Pearcy does not teach or suggest that when the first and second flow control valves and first and second valves are open and third and fourth valves are closed, the water will not flow in a forward direction in the recirculation loop; or that when the first and second valves are closed and the first and second flow controls valves and third and fourth valves are open, the water will not flow in a reverse direction.
It would not have been obvious to modify Pearcy to arrive at the claimed invention without improperly changing the principle of operation of the reference or without improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,360,488 discloses a flushing/cleaning a water distribution pipe system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753