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 .
Priority
Benefit of domestic priority having an earliest filing date of 09/01/2015 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the claims do not require as part of the invention “a liquid containment apparatus” or any of the associated elements of “a liquid containment apparatus”. The claims are interpreted as requiring only a cover with structures considered appropriate/capable of the specified functions.
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 use the word “means,” and are 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:
an interconnection means in claim 36, which is interpreted as:
locking means, which is interpreted as capable of being inserted or secured to a plate settler (see also Fig. 2 and SPEC P11/L19-28);
support legs that connect to the individual plates;
latch connections;
VELCRO or hook and loop devices (SPEC P3/L29-P4/L6);
Different size and/or geometries (SPEC P4/L7-P4/L6);
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.
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 Format
The Examiner appreciates the use of line numbers for each individual claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,39-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6083.01(m). 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 line(s) 7 sets forth the limitation “the incidence of sunlight”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line(s) 7 sets forth the limitation “the surface of a liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line(s) 10-11 sets forth the limitation “the exterior surface of the at least three cover panel portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 sets forth the limitation “the cover is constructed of material that does not facilitate the growth of algae”. The claim scope is unclear, because it is unclear which materials do or do not “facilitate the growth of algae.” The specification does not provide any sort of guide or examples of such materials.
Claim 30 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “a mesh fabric-like material”. The addition of the word "like" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). See MPEP § 2173.05(b).III.E.
Claim 32 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the conveyance of the cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 sets forth the limitation “the cover comprises an interconnection means for selectively interconnecting the at least one settler plate assembly to one of said at least three cover panel portions”. The claims are directed towards a cover with the intended use of interconnecting with an unclaimed settler plate assembly. The claim scope is unclear as to whether in claim 36 the claimed cover includes the settler plate assembly as claimed structure or just capable of being interconnected to the settler plate assembly.
Claim 39 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “the incidence of sunlight”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “the surface of a liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 line(s) 11-12 sets forth the limitation “the exterior surface of the at least three cover panel portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “the incidence of sunlight”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “the surface of a liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 line(s) 11 sets forth the limitation “the exterior surface of the at least three cover panel portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-24,26,28,33,35,37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALPER (US 5049278) in view of ROLEY (US 4767536).
Regarding claims 21-22,26,28,37, GALPER teaches a modular plate settler (title, Figs.) including a cover (e.g. Figs. 1,7A #29) comprising:
a plurality of cover panel portions (see Fig. 1 suggesting about 5 covers, which anticipates the claimed range of at least 3, to cover the plate settler #5; C4/L45-49), each capable of being positioned end-to-end;
each of said cover panel portions having e.g. two side edges (see e.g. Fig. 7A) that descend downward (it’s a 3D object);
said cover panel portions movable (C6/L20-21) for the intended use of abutting with a side edge of an adjacent cover panel portion (see Fig. 1 where adjacent covers are abutting),
wherein the cover panel portions inherently reduce the incidence of sunlight (it’s a cover); and,
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of permitting liquid to flow through the cover (via perforations, Fig. 7A #36; C6/L10-16).
GALPER does not teach the cover panel portions are capable of supporting a weight to allow a human operator. However, ROLEY teaches a gas extraction outlet for wastewater settling tank (title, Figs.) including a cover (Fig. 4 #31) that is capable of supporting a weight of a human for the purpose of providing maintenance or cleaning of e.g. a reservoir or tank (C3/L34-38). Note that it would be obvious to optimize the weight to be sufficient to support an average human operator.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the cover of GALPER to be capable of supporting a human as taught by ROLEY in order to provide maintenance or cleaning. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note the claim interpretation above in regards to details of the liquid containment apparatus.
Regarding claim 23, GALPER’s modified device teaches each one of said cover panel portions is capable of being removable by a person (the perforated plates are easily removed and replaced for maintenance; C6/L41-46).
Regarding claim 24, GALPER’s modified device teaches a gap (or clearance) between an edge of one of said cover panel portions and an edge of an adjacent one of said cover panel portions (C6/L17-19).
GALPER does not specify the gap. However, GALPER teaches the gap is a results-effective variable that affects the operation of the liquid containment apparatus (e.g. fluid flow; C6/L10-19). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed gap range because GALPER teaches the gap is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Also note that a gap between cover panels would affect the amount of sunlight reaching the fluid below the covers, which may also be optimized.
Regarding claim 33, GALPER’s modified device teaches said cover comprises depending members to support the cover (ROLEY Fig. 4 #33; C5/L16-18).
Regarding claim 35, GALPER’s modified device teaches the cover comprises an “interconnection means” (spacer clip, Fig. 7A #35; C6/L25-28).
Regarding claim 38, GALPER’s modified device teaches the cover comprises a stability aid (ROLEY Fig. 4 #43) comprising e.g. ribs (or treads; ROLEY C5/L37).
Claim(s) 25,27,29,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALPER (US 5049278) in view of ROLEY (US 4767536) and ANDERSON (US 4391704).
Regarding claim 25,29,35, GALPER is silent as to the cover material, although ROLEY notes that the prior art cover may be made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic in reference to ANDERSON (C1/L41; C3/L3-4). ANDERSON discloses gas-extraction arrangement for wastewater settling tank (title, Figs.) including a cover made of fiberglass reinforced plastic, which is non-reactive (C4/L30-34). Note that such a non-reactive plastic is capable of not facilitating the growth of algae.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the cover of GALPER to be made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic as taught by ANDERSON in order to provide a non-reactive cover. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Note that a fiberglass-reinforced plastic material is inherently resistant to rust since it is plastic.
Regarding claims 27, GALPER’s modified device teaches as above (the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated by reference) and the cover comprises a stability aid (ROLEY Fig. 4 #43) comprising e.g. ribs (or treads; ROLEY C5/L37); and
wherein said cover comprises plastic (ANDERSON C4/L30-34).
Claim(s) 30,32,34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALPER (US 5049278) in view of ROLEY (US 4767536), and CHARPENTIER (WO 2010055269).
Regarding claim 30,32, GALPER’s modified device does not teach the cover comprises a mesh fabric-like material. However, CHARPENTIER teaches a shelter for a pleasure pool (title, e.g. Fig. 2) comprising a mesh fabric-like material (P3/first paragraph; P4/second paragraph), which allows for ventilation (P3/third paragraph), and does not employ any side-tracks.
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 cover of GALPER to be made of mesh fabric-like material as taught by CHARPENTIER in order to provide ventilation while covering a reservoir. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 34, GALPER’s modified device does not teach the cover is transparent. However, CHARPENTIER teaches a shelter for a pleasure pool (title, e.g. Fig. 2) that may be transparent (P4/second paragraph), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a transparent material may aid in identifying contamination in the liquid below the cover.
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 cover of GALPER to be transparent as taught by CHARPENTIER in order to aid in identifying contamination in the liquid below the cover. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 29-31,40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALPER (US 5049278) in view of ROLEY (US 4767536), and NATALE (US 5837133).
Regarding claim 40, GALPER teaches a modular plate settler (title, Figs.)
including a cover (e.g. Figs. 1,7A #29) comprising:
a plurality of cover panel portions (see Fig. 1 suggesting about 5 covers, which anticipates the claimed range of at least 3, to cover the plate settler #5; C4/L45-49), each capable of being positioned end-to-end;
each of said cover panel portions having e.g. two side edges (see e.g. Fig. 7A) that descend downward (it’s a 3D object);
said cover panel portions movable (C6/L20-21),
wherein the cover panel portions inherently reduce the incidence of sunlight (it’s a cover);
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of permitting liquid to flow through the cover (via perforations, Fig. 7A #36; C6/L10-16); and,
GALPER does not teach the cover panel portions are capable of supporting a weight to allow a human operator and the top surface comprises raised protrusions. However, ROLEY teaches a gas extraction outlet for wastewater settling tank (title, Figs.) including a cover (Fig. 4 #31) that is capable of supporting a weight of a human for the purpose of providing maintenance or cleaning of e.g. a reservoir or tank (C3/L34-38). Additionally, the top surface comprises raised protrusions (non-skid tread; Fig. 4 #43). Note that it would be obvious to optimize the weight to be sufficient to support an average human operator.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the cover of GALPER to be capable of supporting a human as taught by ROLEY in order to provide maintenance or cleaning. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
GALPER does not teach said cover panel portions are movable together. However, NATALE teaches an apparatus for preventing algae growth in open-topped cooling tower reservoirs (title, Figs.) including a cover (e.g. Figs. 1,3 #18) comprising:
e.g. three cover panel portions (Fig. 1 #18), each capable of being positioned end-to-end;
each of said cover panel portions having e.g. two side edges (see side edges at e.g. Fig. 6 #42,40) that descend downward (it’s a 3D object);
said cover panel portions are movable together abutting with a side edge of an adjacent cover panel portion (see also Fig. 5 where they are abutting in a retracted position; C3/L30-32),
wherein the cover panel portions reduce the incidence of sunlight (C1/L40-43),
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of permitting liquid to flow through the cover (it’s porous with an 80% shade factor; abstract; C1/L40-43; C3/L42-50); and,
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of distributing a weight on an exterior surface of the cover panel portions without damaging the cover panel portions (via tension; C1/L43-45; C2/L67-C3/L5,18-21).
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 cover of GALPER to movable together as taught by NATALE in order to easily remove the covers for maintenance. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 29-31, GALPER’s modified device teaches as above (the rejection of claim 40 is incorporated by reference) and the cover comprises a mesh fabric-like material for the purpose of being both porous and blocking light to limit algae growth (NATALE C3/L8-9,43-45).
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NATALE (US 5837133) in view of ROLEY (US 4767536) and ANDERSON (US 4391704).
Regarding claim 39, NATALE teaches an apparatus for preventing algae growth in open-topped cooling tower reservoirs (title, Figs.) including a cover (e.g. Figs. 1,3 #18) comprising:
e.g. three cover panel portions (Fig. 1 #18), each capable of being positioned end-to-end;
each of said cover panel portions having e.g. two side edges (see side edges at e.g. Fig. 6 #42,40) that descend downward (it’s a 3D object);
said cover panel portions are movable together abutting with a side edge of an adjacent cover panel portion (see also Fig. 5 where they are abutting in a retracted position; C3/L30-32),
wherein the cover panel portions reduce the incidence of sunlight (C1/L40-43),
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of permitting liquid to flow through the cover (it’s porous with an 80% shade factor; abstract; C1/L40-43; C3/L42-50); and,
wherein the cover panel portions are capable of distributing a weight on an exterior surface of the cover panel portions without damaging the cover panel portions (via tension; C1/L43-45; C2/L67-C3/L5,18-21); and,
wherein the cover comprises a top surface, a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and two opposing sides that extend between the first and second ends (see e.g. Fig. 3)
NATALE does not teach the cover panel portions are capable of supporting a weight to allow a human operator and the top surface comprises raised protrusions. However, ROLEY teaches a gas extraction outlet for wastewater settling tank (title, Figs.) including a cover (Fig. 4 #31) that is capable of supporting a weight of a human for the purpose of providing maintenance or cleaning of e.g. a reservoir or tank (C3/L34-38). Additionally, the top surface comprises raised protrusions (non-skid tread; Fig. 4 #43). Note that it would be obvious to optimize the weight to be sufficient to support an average human operator.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the cover of NATALE to be capable of supporting a human as taught by ROLEY in order to provide maintenance or cleaning. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
NATALE is silent as to the cover material, although ROLEY notes that the prior art cover may be made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic in reference to ANDERSON (C1/L41; C3/L3-4). ANDERSON discloses gas-extraction arrangement for wastewater settling tank (title, Figs.) including a cover made of fiberglass reinforced plastic, which is non-reactive (C4/L30-34).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the cover of NATALE to be made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic in order to provide a non-reactive cover. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of covers for reservoirs. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MORRIS (US 3683428) discloses rigid, buoyant, insulating and rapid folding swimming pool covers (title, Figs.).
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 ~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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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 1773
Prosecution Insights