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 .
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 12-17 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.
Claim 12 is indefinite because the claim fails to recite a method of cleaning a media pressure vessel. Specifically, the positive steps are directed to removing one or more pipe sections and one or more septa, but fails to positively recite how the vessel is cleaned. What’s the relationship to removing the pipe sections and septa and cleaning the vessel? Claim 12 is indefinite because “the bottom” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant means by “otherwise attached”. Specifically, “removing one or more pipe sections between the header and the vessel” reads broadly on removing all pipe sections between the header and vessel. If all of the pipe sections are removed, then how is the header still attached to the vessel? How is the septa “associated” with the one or more pipe sections? Claim 14 is indefinite because of “one or more other septa and pipe sections”. Applicant’s claim of one or more pipe sections and one or more septa reads on “other septa and pipe sections”. The examiner suggests amending to first and second pipe sections and septa. Claim 15 is indefinite for similar reasons to that of claim 14. Claim 16 is indefinite because “a pipe section” and “the pipe section” should be amended to “the one or more pipe sections” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 is indefinite because “the tank” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 17 is further indefinite because it recites moving the septum sideways. It is unclear whether movement “sideways” is in reference to the vessel or the pipe section.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al. (US3291311).
Re claim 12, in view of the indefiniteness, the claim is broadly interpreted as removing one of more pipe sections and one more septa. Pratt et al. teach an underdrain system for use with tanks. Re claim 12, Pratt et al. teach one or more pipe sections 24 between an external header 50 (col. 2, lines 55-60, col. 4, lines 35-40) and a bottom of the vessel 2 (Fig. 1), and removing one or more septa (i.e. strainers 7; fig. 1) associated with one of more pipe sections. Specifically, col. 3, lines 45-50 teaches that the strainer assembly may be inserted into or removed from the hole 6 provided in the tank, when access to the interior of the tank is limited. Col. 3, lines 45-75 and col. 4, lines 1-40 further teaches that the strainer is inserted into a central opening 118 (Fig. 6) into the bottom of the tank, followed by assembly of additional components including five T connections 122 which connect the strainer to the manifold pipe 130. In summary, Pratt teaches assembly of pipe components (i.e. 122, 130) for insertion of the strainer into the vessel. Pratt et al. teach the insertion and removal of septa from the vessel. Re claims 12-15, Pratt et al. do not removal of one of more pipe sections, and one of more septa, while keeping the header attached to the vessel. However, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove/disassemble one or more pipe sections between the header and the bottom of the vessel, in order to remove one or more septa since Pratt et al. teach insertion of one or more septa includes insertion in the vessel and assembly of pipe components. In reference to the limitations of the header remaining otherwise attached to the vessel, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the header attached to the vessel if one septum requires removal from the interior of the vessel. The examiner takes the position that it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to determine which pipe section (s) are in need of removal depending on the number of septa (i.e. strainers) needing to be removed from the vessel. Re claims 16-17, the limitations are directed to orienting the direction of the the pipe section and septa for removal. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, and in view of the indefiniteness, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the desired direction of the pipe section and septa required for proper assembly and disassembly of components.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al. (US3291311) in view of Rafferty (US 2647636).
Re claim 13, Pratt et al. teach an opening 6 between the strainer (i.e. septa 8) and the vessel 4 (Fig. 3). However, Pratt et al. teach the removal of solids. Rafferty teaches the removal of a strainer cup 26 from a pipe 12 (Figs. 1, 3). Col. 5 lines 1-45 teaches when it is desired to remove the strainer cup for cleaning or replacement, the strainer is slidable removed/withdrawn from nipple 15. Col. 5, lines 35-45 teaches removal of the strainer cup removes smaller particles of foreign matter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed solids from the septa as it is removed from the vessel of Pratt et al., since Rafferty teaches the removal of solids as the strainer cup is removed from the pipe.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 34 of copending Application No. 18/695715 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 12 and 34 are directed to cleaning a media pressure vessel by removing one or more pipe sections while the header remains attached to the vessel and removing one or more septa.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 12/10/2027 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art fails to teach the common features. This is not found persuasive because Craw et al. (US 10981802) teach an external header (paragraphs 16, 70), a plurality of removable pipe sections (Fig. 3) and a plurality of septa (internal filter screens, paragraph 69).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Craw et al. teach a water treatment system. Day et al. teach replacing a filter through a port. McDougald teaches a backwashing apparatus. Doupe et al. teach a cleaning mechanism. Rafferty teaches unloading heading fitter and strainer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc