DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The relevance of the 3/21/2025 IDS is unclear as they are directed to imaging systems and scopes. Specifically it is not clear if they were actually intended to be included in an IDS for this application.
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 1-8, 10-12 and 14-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Line 11 refers to “at least one coupling member”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is already reference to “multiple coupling members”. It is therefore not clear if the claim is referring to at least one of the multiple coupling members or different coupling members.
Line refers to “at least one magnet apparatus” and line 6 refers to “a magnet apparatus”. It is not clear if these are the same or different features.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim refers to “at least one coupling member”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is already reference to “multiple coupling members”. It is therefore not clear if the claim is referring to at least one of the multiple coupling members or different coupling members.
The claim refers to “the engagement members”. It is not clear if referring to the first and second engagement members, one of the first or second engagement members or something else.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim states “the first and second engagement members comprise horizontal securing members”. However claim 6, from which claim 7 depends requires “horizontal securing members”. It is therefore not clear if claim 7 is requiring additional horizontal securing members or limiting the location of the horizontal securing members.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 depends from claim 13. Claim 13 has been canceled.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-3, 8, 10-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anesbug et al (WO 2021/010840).
Regarding Claim 1:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame for mounting at least one magnet apparatus in a fluid receptacle, the modular frame comprising: first and second engagement members (fixation means 34) for engaging the frame with a wall of the fluid receptacle (see pg. 13 lines 1-6, fig. 4); and multiple coupling members (combined attachment and wiper assembly 20) removably connected to each other, each coupling member being configured to couple a magnet apparatus (magnet rod 11) to the frame such that the magnet apparatus is mountable in the fluid receptacle to attract and remove ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from a fluid volume in the fluid receptacle (see pg. 11 lines 15-22, fig. 3); wherein each of the first and second engagement members are respectively removably connected to at least one coupling member (connected through the installation plate assembly 30 (see pg. 12, lines 20-22, figs, 2- 4).
Regarding Claim 2:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1, wherein the fluid receptacle is a vessel, tank, fluid channel, fluid ditch, pipeline or flowline configured to receive, hold and/or contain liquid or slurry which has been removed from a wellbore (structure 40) (see pg. 13 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 3:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1, wherein the first and second engagement members are configured to engage the frame with the wall of the fluid receptacle by removably securing (attached with bolts) them to the wall (see pg. 13 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1 wherein at least one the multiple coupling members form is part of a coupling assembly which is configured to span a part of the fluid receptacle (see fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1, wherein the multiple coupling members (combined attachment and wiper assembly) are identical to one another (see pg. 9 lines 16-19, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1 wherein the multiple coupling members comprise an aperture, projection, groove or recess (extending recess 22) configured to engage with a corresponding aperture, projection, groove or recess (upper stop element) (see pg. 11 lines 15-22, fig. 2) on the at least one magnet apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1 wherein the coupling members comprise an aperture (extending recess) configured to receive the at least one magnet apparatus (see pg. 11 lines 15-22, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14:
Anesbug teaches the ferrous particle removal system comprising: a fluid receptacle for containing fluid contaminated with ferrous or magnetically attractable particles; a modular frame as claimed in claim 1; and at least one magnet apparatus (magnetic rod 11); wherein the modular frame engages with a wall of the fluid receptacle, and wherein the at least one magnet apparatus is coupled to the frame such that it is mounted in the fluid receptacle to attract and remove ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from a fluid volume in the fluid receptacle (see pg. 11 lines 15-22, pg. 5, lines 19-21. fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15:
Anesbug teaches the system as according to claim 14, comprising one or more additional modular frames configured to mount additional magnet apparatus in the fluid receptacle (two or mode modules in series) (see pg. 8 lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 16:
Anesbug teaches the method of removing ferrous particles from a fluid contaminated with ferrous or magnetically attractable particles in a system according to claim 14; the method comprising: attracting ferrous or magnetically attractable particles in the fluid to the at least one ferrous particle removal apparatus; and removing the ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from the fluid (se pg. 5 lines 19-21).
Regarding Claim 17:
Anesbug teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein removing the ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from the fluid comprises removing the at least one magnet apparatus and attached ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from the fluid receptacle, thereby separating the ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from the fluid (see pg. 9 lines 11-21).
Regarding Claim 18:
Anesbug teaches the method according to claim 17, comprising releasing the ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from the at least one magnet apparatus at a discharge location (rods are removed, therefore there is a discharge location) (see pg. 9 lines 11-21).
Regarding Claim 19:
Anesbug teaches the method of installing a modular frame for mounting at least one magnet apparatus in a fluid receptacle, the method comprising: assembling a modular frame from a kit of parts according to claim 13 (parts are considered to be those in claim 14 for purpose of examination) by removably connecting the first and second engagement members to at least one of the multiple coupling members; and - locating the assembled frame in or on the fluid receptacle by engaging a wall of the fluid receptacle such that the at least one magnet assembly is mountable in the fluid receptacle to attract and remove ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from a fluid volume in the fluid receptacle (see pg. 13 lines 1-6, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 20:
Anesbug teaches the method according to claim 19, further comprising coupling the at least one magnet apparatus to the frame (rod assemblies are attached) such that it is mounted in the fluid receptacle to attract and remove ferrous or magnetically attractable particles from a fluid volume in the fluid receptacle (see pg. 13 lines 14-16).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Anesbug et al (WO 2021/010840) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 104324802, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 4:
Anesbug teaches the modular frame according to claim 1.
Anesbug does not teach the first and second engagement members comprise elongated support members, configured to extend vertically in the fluid receptacle and be removably securable to the wall of the fluid receptacle.
Wu teaches a modular frame for a magnetic assembly wherein first and second engagement members (guide rails) comprise elongated support members, configured to extend vertically in the fluid receptacle and be removably securable to the wall of the fluid receptacle (see para. 0014).
Anesbug and Wu are analogous inventions in the art of modular frames for magnetic assemblies. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the guide rails of Wu to the first and second engagement members of Anesbug, and further add the movable frame of Wu to the installation plate of Anesbug because makes mounting and dismounting very convenient (see Wu para. 0021), which is a desirable feature in Anesbug (see Anesbug pg. 9 lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 5:
Anesbug, as modified, teaches the modular frame according to claim 4, wherein the support members comprise a plurality of connection points (multiple elastic clamps) arranged over the direction of elongation, wherein the connection points are configured to enable at least one coupling member to be positioned at a selected vertical height in the fluid receptacle, and/or to enable the engagement members to be removably secured to the wall of the fluid receptacle at a selected vertical height in the fluid receptacle (see Wu, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6:
Anesbug, as modified, teaches the modular frame according to claim 4, further comprising horizontal securing members (fixation means 34) configured to rest on an upward facing surface of the fluid receptacle (see Anesbug pg. 13 lines 1-6, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7:
Anesbug, as modified, teaches the modular frame according to claim 6, wherein the first and second engagement members comprise horizontal securing members (fixation means 34) configured to rest on an upward facing surface or edge of the wall (see Anesbug pg. 13 lines 1-6, fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights