Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/628,760

SEA STRAINER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 07, 2024
Examiner
ROYCE, LIAM A
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Miller-Leaman Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 522 resolved
At TC average
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 522 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22JAN2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 and SPECIES A, Figs. 1-20 without traverse in the reply filed on 22JAN2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the difference in the claims is not correct and that there is no undue burden in examination. The argument is persuasive and the examiner has reconsidered the restriction requirement to withdraw the restriction between Inventions I and II. Invention III remains withdrawn. In view of the above noted partial withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Priority Benefit of domestic priority having an earliest filing date of 03/12/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2,5-9,11,14-15,17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,951,424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,951,424 either anticipate or are not patentably distinct from the claims of the instant application. instant application U.S. Patent No. 11,951,424 Claims 1,7 Same as instant claims 1,7 except additionally claiming control valves Claims 2,8 Same as claims 2,11 Claims 3,9 Same as claims 5,14 Claims 4,10 Same as claims 6,15 Claims 5,11 Same as claims 8,17 Claims 6,12 Similar to claims 9,18, not patentably distinct Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 have allowable subject matter over the prior art of record. The prior art neither teaches, suggests, nor makes obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a sea strainer system, comprising the combination of claimed elements. DESAI (US 20120000835) discloses a duplex strainer (title, Figs.) comprising two strainers (Figs. 1,2 #210,212), a cross-flow conduit (Figs. 2 #112), outlet conduits (Fig. 2 #214,224), and control valves (Fig. 2 #120,130,140,150). CHOI (US 9631641) discloses a pump system (title, Figs.) including two strainers (Figs. 1-3 #14,24) and a backflush pump (Fig. 1 #13). ANDERSON (US 20020008068) discloses an apparatus and method for backwashing fluid filter systems (title, Figs.) including a filtering apparatus (Fig. 1 #10), a backflush pump (Fig. 1 #48), and a variable speed motor drive (par. [0019]). SHARPE (US 5705065) discloses a sea water strainer (title, Figs.) comprising a housing (Fig. 1 #16) made of transparent material or alternatively a transparent portion or window. AMARAVADI (US 20170050128) discloses a transverse flow self-cleaning strainer (title, Figs.) including a programmable logic controller (PLC, par. [0028,30]). BENENSON (US 20040159617) discloses a self-cleaning water filter comprising a plurality of valves for backwashing the filter. BEN HORIN (US 20210069619) discloses a filtration system having multiple filters and comprising a valving device for reversing the direction of fluid-flow through the filtration-element for backwashing. OYULVSTAD (NO 20092182) discloses a filter arrangement of two parallel or series backwashable filters. Telephonic Inquiries 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 M-F ~11:00~15:00. 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, Benjamin 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 A. ROYCE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1777 /Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595191
Wastewater Unit With Internal Sandwiched Connector
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576347
HOT ROLLING MILL WITH SEPARATOR FOR MILL SCALE FROM WASTEWATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569782
COMPOSITIONS AND RELATED KITS AND METHODS FOR WATER TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564833
KIT FOR ISOLATION OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA AND THE METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559392
Sustainable System and Method for Removing and Concentrating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Water
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+21.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 522 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month