DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
804
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Continuity Data Map
PNG
media_image2.png
279
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Election of 01 MAY 2026
PNG
media_image3.png
391
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant's election with traverse as indicated above acknowledged.
Applicant’s traversal arguments are acknowledged:
PNG
media_image4.png
985
933
media_image4.png
Greyscale
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Presently, there is only ONE independent claim. It is unclear why the above traversal arguments make reference to “independent claims” as if more than one was presently pending. That single independent claim 11 has been made specific to “a proportional valve, which is hydraulically actuated”, making the issue moot with respect to the “Valve Device Actuation Species”.
As was asserted in the original Lack of Unity Requirement:
Species I & II, and V1 & V2, lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “wherein, as the particulate contamination being cleaned out of the fluid flow by the filter increases, the pressure difference between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet increases; and wherein a valve device is arranged downstream of the discharge opening in the fluid flow direction, said valve device regulating the discharge rate of backflushing fluid as a function of the differential pressure”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of EISEN (US 2021/0023482 A1). EISEN discloses the monitoring of the differential pressure, (i.e., “a predetermined change in a pressure differential between a first pressure P1 and a second pressure P2 measured respectively from opposite sides of the screening element 103” and “activation of a self-cleaning session by turning the drain valve 118 open”, which makes clear that Applicant’s special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art.
Applicant presents no specific arguments against the specific technical feature articulated therein, nor EISEN.
Pending elected claims 11, 15 and 17-20 have been examined.
The text of withdrawn claims, i.e., claim 16 is required to be present.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
“Clean” Pending Elected Claims
11. (Currently Amended) A filter device comprising a filter which is used to clean a fluid flow of particulate contamination in a specifiable flow direction, having a fluid inlet for supplying an unfiltered medium flow, a fluid outlet for removing a filtrate flow, and a discharge opening for discharging a backflushing fluid produced while backflushing the filter against the specifiable flow direction using a backflushing device; wherein, as the particulate contamination being cleaned out of the fluid flow by the filter increases, the pressure difference between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet increases; and wherein a valve device is arranged downstream of the discharge opening in the fluid flow direction, said valve device regulating the discharge rate of backflushing fluid as a function of the differential pressure; wherein, as the filter becomes increasingly contaminated and the differential pressure increases as a result, the valve device is operable into a fully open position in which backflushing becomes more intensive; wherein the valve device is formed by a proportional valve, which is hydraulically actuated and controlled by the differential pressure at the filter; and wherein the backflushing device has a drive motor, which is integrated in the regulation system with the valve device such that, as the differential pressure at the filter increases and the valve device opens increasingly, the drive motor is controllable in the direction of higher speeds for increased backflushing.
15. (Previously Presented) The filter device of claim 11, wherein, with a hydraulic drive motor, the fluid is supplied on the inlet side of the drive motor with filtrate from the filter.
17. (Previously Presented) The filter device of claim 11, wherein the proportional valves used for the valve device, which are constructed in the manner of a pressure compensator, are 2/2-way or 4/2-way proportional valves.
18. (Previously Presented) The filter device of claim 11, wherein the hydraulically controlled valve device comprises a valve housing, in which a valve piston is guided in a longitudinally displaceable manner, having at least one opening in each case on opposite end faces of the valve housing for the purpose of connecting the valve device to the fluid inlet and outlet via control lines and having at least one recess, in particular in the form of an annular recess, in the valve piston for controlling a fluid connection between an inlet and an outlet in the valve housing, wherein the inlet is connected to the discharge opening and the outlet leads to a sludge discharge side.
19. (Currently Amended) The filter device of claim 18,wherein the hydraulically controlled pressure compensator in the valve piston comprises a further recess, in particular a further annular recess, for controlling a further fluid connection between a further inlet and a further outlet, wherein the further inlet is connected to the outlet side of the hydraulic drive motor and the further outlet is connected to one outlet on the valve housing for controlling the backflushing discharge rate.
20. (Previously Presented) The filter device of claim 11, wherein there is no need to attach an additional sludge discharge valve on the sludge discharge side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11,15 and 17-20 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.
In claim 11, the recitation, “the regulation system” lacks clear positive antecedent basis. It is unclear what minimal components make up the claimed “regulation system”. It is unclear how or where “the regulation system” relates to the elected species corresponding to that depicted in Figures 1-4. No “regulation system” appears to have been disclosed with respect to the elected species corresponding to that depicted in Figures 1-4.
Dependent claims 18 and 19 specify, “in particular”. It is unclear if the language thereafter is further limiting, or merely exemplary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 11,15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.
The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.
Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement is whether the experimentation needed to practice the invention is undue or unreasonable? The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Consideration of the Wands Factors
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims in this application, is confusingly broad. Applicant mixes disparate aspects of the various disclosed embodiments the way one would fill a plate at an all-you-can-eat buffet. A “valve device regulating the discharge rate of backflushing fluid as a function of differential pressure” in combination with a “regulation system” which incongruously employs an “electromagnetic actuating device 76”. The claims confusingly mix different as species/embodiments.
The language appearing in the body of the claims, in a manner that would enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention recited in claim 11. A confusingly broad claim requires a correspondingly more detailed disclosure to enable the entire scope of the claims. Applicant’s disclosure does not enable anything beyond the species disclosed.
(B) The nature of the invention
The disclosure appears to comprise an invention mechanical in nature. While cases mechanical in nature may sometimes present simpler analysis, the disclosure should not leave the potential infringer in the dark, and forced to guess as to how the claimed “regulation system” which is not disclosed as a component of the elected species which employs a “hydraulic drive” as depicted in Figure 1. Applicant’s disclosure does not explain how the “hydraulic drive”, a hydraulic, or liquid based system interacts with the “regulation system” disclosed with respect to the non-elected species depicted in Figure 9. Claim 11 specifies “wherein the valve device is formed by a proportional valve, which is hydraulically actuated and controlled by the differential pressure at the filter” as depicted in Fig. 1. The non-elected species of Figure 9 employs “an electromagnetic actuating device 76” which is not “hydraulically actuated” as claimed, and the species depicted in Figures 1-4 is NOT disclosed as employing a “regulation system” as disclosed with respect to the species depicted in Figure 9. There is no disclosure of the combination as claimed, nor would it be readily apparent, given the disparate, electrical versus hydraulic, technologies. The nature of these technologies is fundamentally different.
(C) The state of the prior art
While Applicant briefly discusses the state of the art in the specification, that state of the art does not fill in the gaps that would enable one skilled in the art to arrive at the combination of limitations recited in independent claim 11 as most recently amended, in view of the instant disclosure.
Surprisingly, Applicant, for some unknown reason, deleted reference to some known prior art which may have illuminated the state of the prior art:
PNG
media_image5.png
935
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
One of ordinary skill in the art would have at least some knowledge of mechanical and electrical technology. However, one skilled in the art would be unable to arrive at the claimed invention having Applicant’s disclosure before him, absent more detail, as to how the invention recited in claim 11 can be made or practiced.
(E) The level of predictability in the art
The "predictability or lack thereof" in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known, to arrive at, or result in the claimed invention. One skilled in the art would not be able to predictably extrapolate beyond the disclosed embodiments to breathe life into the smoragasborg of limitations that are recited in independent claim 11. The combination of limitations recited in claim 11 is not disclosed or suggested as an alternative for the specifically disclosed species or embodiments. An insurmountable level of predictability with respect to anything other than those disclosed species/embodiments, given the disparate nature of the technologies (e.g. hydraulic versus electromechanical) weighs heavily against a finding of enablement for anything other than a plurality of angled vanes.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. The inventor does not appear to provide any direction with respect to the combination of limitations now recited in claim 11. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding of enablement.
(G) The existence of working examples
There do not appear to be any working examples involving the combination of limitations recited in claim 11 in the disclosure. This Wands factor weighs heavily against a finding of enablement with respect to the newly claimed combination of limitations recited in claim 11.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The quantity of experimentation factor concerns whether the disclosure provides enough direction so that a skilled artisan can achieve the invention without excessive, non-routine guesswork. It is unclear what other structural configurations would work. In this application, no amount of experimentation could provide the requisite information necessary to assist one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the combination of limitations now recited in claim 11, or how to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant, originally filed disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights