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 of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/2/2025 and 10/16/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus claim but includes a limitation directed to “a process that uses water” as part of the apparatus claim. The claim is indefinite as it is unclear what elements or structure are being claimed as part of this process or if the process is directed to an intended use.
Similarly, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus claim but includes a limitation directed “a process that uses water” as part of the apparatus claim. The claim is indefinite as it is unclear what elements or structure are being claimed of this process or if the process is directed to an intended use.
Claims 1, 4, 7, recites the limitation "the separators." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient basis for the plurality of centrifugal separators. Terminology should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of separators." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient basis for the plurality of centrifugal separators. Terminology should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 10 recites “wherein a temperature with the process is a scalder operating at above 30 C.” As discussed above, this is an apparatus claim and a process is not an apparatus. Further, the language of the claim is problematic as it states a temperature in the process is a physical element (scalder) and it is unclear how a temperature can be a scalder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Davy teaches an apparatus comprising a means for/process that uses water and produces wastewater comprising insoluble solids ([0292]); a pump configured to receive and pressurize the wastewater from the process ([0320]; a plurality of centrifugal separators connected in parallel and configured to receive the wastewater from the pump ([0315]); wherein the separators are each configured to separate out at least a portion of the insoluble solids from the wastewater to produce a cleaned wastewater; and an additive supply comprising a supply of flocculant configured to introduce the flocculant into the cleaned wastewater ([0318] and [0331]); and wherein the system is configured to recycle the cleaned wastewater to the process ([0379]) (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that the material or fluid worked upon is not given patentable weight. However, Davy teaches that the apparatus is capable of removing similar contaminants ([0292]).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Davy teaches an apparatus comprising: a means for/process that uses water and produces wastewater comprising insolubles; a first pump configured to receive and pressurize the wastewater from the process; a first centrifugal separator configured to receive the wastewater from the first pump and separate out at least a portion of the insolubles from the wastewater to produce a once-cleaned wastewater; a tank configured to receive and hold the once-cleaned wastewater (Fig. 4); a second pump configured to receive and pressurize the once-cleaned wastewater from the tank; a second centrifugal separator configured to receive the once-cleaned wastewater from the second pump and separate out at least a portion of the insolubles from the once-cleaned wastewater to produce a twice- cleaned wastewater; and an additive supply comprising a supply of flocculant configured to introduce the flocculant into the once-cleaned wastewater and/or the twice-cleaned wastewater; and wherein the system is configured to recycle the twice-cleaned wastewater to the process (Figs. 2 and 4; [0292], [0301]-[0302], [0315]-[0331], and [0379]). It is noted that the second centrifugal separator would be part of (106), that is disclosed to be the same as (104), that is defined by Davy to be centrifugal separators in parallel and the flow pattern between (104) and (106) is shown in Fig. 2.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS) in view of Henson et al. (US 2013/0126431).
Regarding claim 3, Davy teaches that various elements and operational steps during use are controlled via an automated controller ([0320]) and sensors/means for are provided to determine data such as flow rates and temperature ([0401]). However, Davy fails to teach the controller including a control panel and display as claimed. Henson teaches that in a process for treating water that has hydrocylones (0034]), a controller is provided with a control panel and display that can provide data about the operation due to various sensors and allow control of the various elements within the system ([0053]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a control system as claimed as it is suitable system controller known in the art and would provide data from the sensors about the operation of the system and allow for control of the individual elements in the system.
Regarding claim 4, Table 1 in Davy shows that sampling is provided at specific instances in the system. It is noted that providing duplicate sensors at different points in the system would have been an obvious matter of duplication of parts/sensors and providing said sensors wherever data on the stream being treated is desired.
Regarding claim 5, Davy talks about pumps in general but does not disclose the pumps are variable speed pumps controlled via the controller. Henson teaches that it is known for pumps for moving liquid in a treatment system to be variable speed pumps controlled via a controller thereby allowing for control of the flows within the system ([0053]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide variable speed pumps as the specific pumps in Davy with a reasonable expectation of success while also allowing control of the flows within the system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS) in view of Hamann et al. (US 2004/0159599).
Regarding claim 6, Davy shows that some sort of manifold/piping is provided as claimed to distribute fluid to be treated from the pump to the centrifugal separators (Figs. 6-7 and [0320]) but fails to teach a pressure sensor as claimed. Hamann teaches that after a pump that pressurizes the water and manifold (part connecting pump to the piping), a pressure gauge/sensor is provided as claimed in order to control how many of the parallel hydrocyclones are used depending on the pressure as too small a pressure would not provide the desired centrifugal separation results ([0039]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a pressure gauge in order to ensure that the pressure is adequate when multiple hydrocyclones in parallel are used.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Davy teaches that multiple separation means can be used ([0313]-[0315]) but fails to teach the specific combination of a strainer before the centrifugal separators. It is Examiner’s position that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide combination as claimed as it is merely using known, equivalent separator means (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 8, Davy teaches in a different embodiment that the additive supply can further include an antimicrobial/sterilization means, such as ozone ([0377]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include a supply of antimicrobial, such as ozone, as claimed in order to sterilize the water as part of the treatment system in Davy.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS) in view of Iseri et al. (US 2002/005384).
Regarding claim 9, Davy teaches that the sterilization means includes a supply of ozone but fails to teach the sterilization antimicrobial being hydrogen peroxide. Iseri teaches the equivalent sterilization antimicrobial means include ozone and hydrogen peroxide ([0035]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide known equivalent sterilization antimicrobial means, such as hydrogen peroxide, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS) in view of Henley et al. (US 2023/0054607).
Regarding claim 10, Davy fails to teach a scalder as part of the process/means for providing the water to be treated. Henley teaches that a known water treating system can treat water sourced from a food processing plant that includes a scalder capable of operating at the temperatures claimed ([0009]-[0011]). As both Davy and Henley teach a method of removing similar contaminants from water sourced from the food industry, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat water sourced from a food processing plant that includes a scalder with a reasonable expectation of success as the process would remove similar contaminants from an aqueous stream.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy et al. (US 2020/0369547 in IDS) in view of Van Gelder (US 4,214,887).
Regarding claim 12, Davy teaches that two sets of hydrocyclones can be used in series but fails to teach the downstream hydrocyclone is configured/capable of removing smaller insoluble particles. Van Gelder teaches that in apparatuses that treat wastewater and have at least two hydrocyclone in series, it is known for the downstream hydrocyclone to be of a different sizing in order to remove smaller contaminants not removed by the upstream hydrocyclones (C7/L67-C8/L17). As such, it would have been obvious to provide the downstream hydrocyclones with the claimed design in order to remove smaller particles than the upstream hydrocyclones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights