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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “sitetube” should read “sight tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “sitetube” should read “sight tube”
Claim 4: “the filtered water” should read “the filtered waste water
Claims 5-8 and 10, “stainer” should read “strainer”
Claim 9 and 11: “is polypropylene micro fiber filter element” should read “is a polypropylene micro fiber filter element”
Claim 11, line 6 and 11: “the filter element” should read “the removable filter element”.
Claim 11, line 8: “shelf then” should read “shelf when”.
Claims 11 and 13: “O-Ring” should read “O-ring”
Claim 12: “is step” should read “is a step”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “element” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “strainer element” and “filter element” in claims 6-11 and 13, and are not being interpreted because strainer and filter both provide structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 3, 4, 11, and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the untreated waste water" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 contains the law name “the federal clean water act”. The claim scope is uncertain since the law cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In the present case, the law name is used to identify/describe the current set of rules that meet the clean water act, but those rules can be changed, and there is no clear language as to what specific parts of the federal clean water act the invention is designed to uphold, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the step" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the circumferential opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the filter element" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez (7459074).
Regarding claim 1, Sanchez discloses a Fire Sprinkler System Discharge Filter System (FSSDFS) comprising: a valve (13, fig 1) configured to connect to a sprinkler system to receive raw waste water; a strainer (18, fig 1) in fluid communication with the valve to receive the raw waste water from the valve and release strained waste water; a filter (21, fig 1) in fluid communication with the strainer to receive the strained waste water from the strainer and release filtered waste water; and an outlet pipe (26, fig 1) connected directly to the filter to receive the filtered waste water and to release the filtered waste water for disposal directly into storm drains (col 5, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 2, Sanchez discloses a site tube (16, fig 1) residing serially with the strainer and filter between the valve and the outlet pipe.
Regarding claim 3, Sanchez discloses wherein: the strainer receives the untreated waste water directly from the valve; and the filter receives the strained waste water directly from the strainer (fig 1, the only parts between the two are connectors and hoses similar to applicants invention, thus they are directly connected via said hoses and connectors).
Regarding claim 4, Sanchez discloses wherein the filter releases the filtered water satisfying the Federal Clean Water Act (col 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Sanchez discloses wherein the filter element is a 10 micron or less stainer element (col 6, lines 15-25, the filter is a 1 micron filter, thus it is less than 10).
Regarding claim 12, Sanchez discloses wherein a circumferential opening is a step (see annotated fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 5, 6, and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Hensley (US-Pub 2003/0000895).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 8 Sanchez does not disclose wherein the strainer element is an about (note, applicant states in par. 0027 of the specification that about refers to within 10%, so for all claims about will refer to a margin of 10%) 40 micron or less stainer element, or wherein the filter element is about a 10 micron stainer element.
Hensley teaches a system for cleaning wastewater (301, fig 2a) with a first strainer element (310, fig 2a) having a first element of about 40 microns or less (par. 0034) and a second filter element (320, fig 2a) having a 10 micron (par. 0034) strainer element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straining and filtering elements disclosed by Sanchez by having the first be about 40 microns and the second be about 10 microns based on the teachings of Hensley. Doing so would allow for an acceptable run time between cleanings, as suggested by Hensley (par. 0035).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Lengerich (US-Pub 2017/0217790).
Regarding claim 9, Sanchez does not disclose wherein the filter element is polypropylene micro fiber filter element.
Lengerich teaches a system for removing contaminants from water (par. 003) comprising a filter made of a polypropylene microfiber filter (par. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter element disclosed by Sanchez by having it be a polypropylene micro fiber filter based on the teachings of Lengerich, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Lengerich and Hensley.
Regarding claim 10, Sanchez as modified by Hensley in claims 6 and 8 and Lengerich in claim 9 discloses wherein: the strainer element is a 40 micron or less stainer element; the filter element is a 10 micron or less stainer element (see modification of claim 6 and 8 above); and the filter element is polypropylene micro fiber filter element (see modification of claim 9 above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Knopke (US-Pub 2021-0323839).
Regarding claim 11, Sanchez discloses wherein: the filter includes a filter body (22, fig 4) and a removable filter lid (62, fig 5); the filter body includes an internal shelf (where top part of filter 60 rests, fig 5); the shelf includes a circumferential opening (opening where bag 56 fits through, fig 5); a removable filter element (56, fig 5) resides inside the filter body; the filter element includes a flared top (60, fig 5) for seating against the step.
Sanchez does not disclose wherein the flared top includes a circumferential groove; and an O-Ring resides in the circumferential groove and seats against the shelf then the filter element is seated in the filter body.
Knopke teaches a cartridge filter (10, fig 3) including a flared top (18, fig 3) including a circumferential groove (36, fig 3); and an O-Ring (34, fig 3) resides in the circumferential groove and when combined with Sanchez would seat against the shelf when the filter element is seated in the filter body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter top disclosed by Sanchez by having a groove with an O ring in said groove seat against the shelf based on the teachings of Knopke. Doing so would prevent unfiltered water from leaking around the filter (par. 0044), as suggested by Knopke.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Knopke and Hensley.
Regarding claim 13, Sanchez discloses a Fire Sprinkler System Discharge Filter System (FSSDFS) comprising: a valve (13, fig 1) configured to connect to a sprinkler system to receive raw waste water; a strainer (18, fig 1) in fluid communication with the valve to receive the raw waste water from the valve and release strained waste water; a strainer element (48, fig 3) residing in the strainer, a filter (21, fig 1) in fluid communication with the strainer to receive the strained waste water from the strainer and release filtered waste water; a filter element (58, fig 5) residing on a circumferential shelf (shelf holding top part 60 in place, fig 5) inside the filter; and an outlet pipe (26, fig 1) connected to the filter to receive the filtered waste water from the filter and to release the filtered waste water for disposal into storm drains (col 5, lines 64-67), and a riser (vertical portion going from the step to the entrance 54, fig 5) rising from the circumferential shelf.
Sanchez does not disclose a 40 micron strainer element residing in the strainer, a 10 micron filter element, an O-Ring resided in a groove in a top of the filter element and seals against a riser rising from the circumferential shelf.
Knopke teaches a cartridge filter (10, fig 3) including a flared top (18, fig 3) including a circumferential groove (36, fig 3); and an O-Ring (34, fig 3) resides in the circumferential groove and seals against a riser (outer wall rising from its shelf, since the O-ring would sit in the outside of the shelf it would be placed against the shelf and riser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter top disclosed by Sanchez by having a groove with an O ring in said groove seat against the shelf based on the teachings of Knopke. Doing so would prevent unfiltered water from leaking around the filter (par. 0044), as suggested by Knopke.
Hensley teaches a system for cleaning wastewater (301, fig 2a) with a first strainer element (310, fig 2a) having a first element of about 40 microns or less (par. 0034) and a second filter element (320, fig 2a) having a 10 micron (par. 0034) strainer element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straining and filtering elements disclosed by Sanchez by having the first be about 40 microns and the second be about 10 microns based on the teachings of Hensley. Doing so would allow for an acceptable run time between cleanings, as suggested by Hensley (par. 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sanchez (US-Pub 2020-0385284) teaches a waste water treatment system similar to applicants invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741