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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) and/or Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt) are not persuasive;
the claims as amended regarding septa dimensions, now necessitating all of claims 18-27 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 over Pratt in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) and Hyatt , with claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as further obvious in view of Miles et al PGPUBS Document US 2018/0305220 (Miles).
The Argument that teaching reference Soriente discloses a septa having a diameter of 5.62 inches, thus not meeting the limitation requiring the septa to have a diameter of at least 6 inches is acknowledged and is not persuasive.
It is submitted that the taught septa diameter of 5.62 inches, makes the claimed septa diameter of at least 6 inches obvious.
Soriento teaches that such approximate diameter dimension of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2).
Such septum diameter dimension, as recited in independent claim 18, and further limited as recited in claims 20 is also deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the dimension of the septum to the dimensions and design of water treatment systems apparatus and accompanying vessels in which the septum are located. The MPEP, Section 2144.05, includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have the claimed diameter of at least 6 inches, as taught by Soriente, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid {Soriente at (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2)}.
Details of the grounds of rejection are provided below in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 portion of the Office Action below.
The argument that Soriente also does not describe septa extending upwards into a vessel from the bottom, since Soriente discloses strainer assemblies which extend both above and below a floor of vessel, without penetrating the bottom of the vessel is not persuasive.
It is submitted that language of instant claim 18 encompass septa configurations which extend both above and below a bottom of a vessel. The floor of the vessel relied upon by Soriente functions and meets the structural criteria of a bottom surface of the vessel.
In response to argument that Soriente lacks a teaching of the claimed penetration depth from the bottom of the vessel of 13 inches or less, it is submitted that such language reads on a penetration depth of 0 inches, thus reads on septa which lack there being any penetration through a bottom of a vessel, or having any penetration depth between 0 and 13 inches.
Claim Interpretation
The terminology “septa” or “septum” as recited in claims 18, 20, 27, 29, and 31-34 is interpreted as meaning strainers or screens extending away from ports and/or connected to, or including pipe sections, in view of the Specification, as defined and described in paragraphs [0005, 0010, 0015, 0032 and 0046] and as illustrated in figures 7-10.
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.
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.
Claims 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) and Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt).
For independent claim 18, Pratt discloses a liquid treatment system (column 1, lines 9-14 re filtering using a filter bed or by ion exchange treatment of liquid) comprising,
a vessel (tank 2 or 100) having a bottom (4 or 102), (see fig 1 and 6, column 1, line 70-column 2, line 4 and column 3, lines 50-64; and,
a plurality of septa extending upwards into the vessel from the bottom (figs 1, 5 and 6 and column 3, lines 50-64 re strainer assemblies 7 or 106 which project through the vessel bottom into the interior of the tank or vessel) .
Claim 18 firstly differs by requiring the system as explicitly configured to treat water. Hyatt discloses a filter bed configured for treating fluid which may be water (column 1, lines 10-20 and 29-42). Soriente also discloses a filter bed configured for treating fluid which may be water (column 1, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the liquid treatment arts, to have configured or utilized the Pratt system for treatment of specifically water, in view of Hyatt and/or Soriente, since it is well known that filters in the form of filter beds are effective for treating water.
Pratt is silent regarding septa diameter and penetration depth of the septa into the vessel and thus lacks any teaching of the claim 18 limitation of wherein the septa have one or more of a) a diameter of at least 6 inches, and b) a penetration depth measured from the bottom of the vessel of 13 inches or less.
Soriente also teaches a granular media filter bed in a tank or vessel for purifying water (column 1, lines 15-20) and teaches a plurality of strainer or septa assemblies 30 extending upwards into a filter bed 12 from an underdrain bottom surface 13 of the filter bed (figure 2 and column 2, lines 32-52 regarding the filter bed in the tank, and column 3, lines 1-8 regarding the strainer assemblies, with column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches.
Soriente teaches septa extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media, such septa suggested as having a diameter of at least 6 inches (column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, thus approximating the at least 6 inch septa diameter required.
Soriente teaches that such diameter dimension of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2).
Such septum diameter dimension, as recited in independent claim 18, and further limited as recited in claims 20 is also deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the dimension of the septum to the dimensions and design of water treatment systems apparatus and accompanying vessels in which the septum are located. The MPEP, Section 2144.05, includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have the claimed diameter of at least 6 inches, as taught by Soriente and Hansen, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid {Soriente at (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2)}.
Pratt also lacks recitation of the septa having a specified penetration depth measured from the bottom of the vessel of 13 inches or less.
Hyatt also teaches strainers or septa c through c5, see extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media (see figure 3 and page 1, lines 66-71), and
suggests such septa extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches {as claimed in claim 21}, or at least 5 inches {as claimed in claim 22}, the septa extending upward from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend much further into the vessel than do the septum as shown in figure 3) . Hyatt suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42).
Such septum penetration dimensions as recited in claim 18, and further limited in dependent claims 21 and 22, are also deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have also optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the penetration dimensions of the septum to the dimensions and design of water treatment systems apparatus and accompanying vessels in which the septum are located. The MPEP, Section 2144.05, includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, and also to extend at least 5 inches into the vessel, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often.
Claim 19 further differs by requiring wherein a water treatment vessel has a diameter in the range of 7-12 feet
For claim 19, Hyatt further teaches such filter bed-containing tank or vessel dimension at page 1, line 51-53 regarding the vessel to have a diameter in the range of 7-12 feet, so as to be of sufficient size so as to have a great enough filtering surface, so as to provide a long period of filtering operation use (page 1, lines 20-42) .
Such vessel diameter dimension, is also deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the dimension of the septum to the dimensions and design of water treatment systems apparatus and accompanying vessels in which the septum are located, so as to enable the vessel to be of sufficient size so as to have a great enough filtering surface, so as to provide a long period of filtering operation use.. The MPEP, Section 2144.05, includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been accordingly further obvious to have configured the vessel of the Pratt system to have such diameter, as taught by Hyatt, in order to enable the vessel to be of sufficient size so as to have a great enough filtering surface, so as to provide a long period of filtering operation use.
For claim 20, Pratt is silent regarding vessel diameter, whereas Soriente further teaches or suggests wherein septa in a water treatment vessel have the claimed diameter of up to 10 inches.
Soriente also teaches a granular media filter bed in a tank or vessel for purifying water (column 1, lines 15-20) and teaches a plurality of strainer or septa assemblies 30 extending upwards into a filter bed 12 from an underdrain bottom surface 13 of the filter bed (figure 2 and column 2, lines 32-52 regarding the filter bed in the tank, and column 3, lines 1-8 regarding the strainer assemblies, with column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, or “about” 6 inches).
Soriente teaches that such configuration of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2).
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have such a diameter, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid.
For claims 21 and 22, Pratt is silent regarding the length of penetration depth or upward extension of the septa into the vessel.
Claims 21 and 22 explicitly also differ by explicitly reciting the septa or strainers as extending into the vessel or having a penetration depth a distance of 10 inches or less {claim 21}, and extending into the vessel or having a penetration depth a distance of at least 5 inches {claim 22}.
Hyatt teaches strainers or septa c through c5, see extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media (see figure 3 and page 1, lines 66-71), and
suggests such septa extending, or having such penetration depth of no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches as recited in claim 21, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (disclosure of the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend much further into the vessel than do the septum (figure 3) .
Hyatt suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often.
For claim 22, Hyatt further teaches or suggests wherein the penetration depth is at least 5 inches.
Hyatt again suggests such degree of septa extending, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend about twice as high vertically into the vessel as do the septum (figure 3) .
Hyatt again suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend at least 5 inches, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often.
For claim 23, Pratt further discloses an underdrain system disposed below the vessel comprising a plurality of removable pipe sections each having a lower end and an upper end, each removable pipe section corresponding to one of the septa (column 1, lines 9-14 and column 4, lines 13-21 and 30-48 re an underdrain comprising pipe sections and tees 122, 130, 132, 134 and 136).
For claim 24, Pratt further discloses wherein the upper end of each of the removable pipe sections is attached to the bottom of the vessel (figure 6 and column 4, lines 2-22 re pipe sections 122 and 134 being attached to the vessel body with pad 116 and mating flanges 120).
For claim 25, Pratt further discloses the system further comprising an external header attached to the lower end of each of the removable pipe sections (figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 52-65 and column 4, lines 35-40 regarding at least one manifold or “header” 50 and common outlet line or “header” 56 .
For claim 26, Pratt further discloses wherein attachments between the removable pipe sections and the vessel and the external header are made by way of horizontal flanges (mating flange attachments 110 and 120 between pipe sections and vessel bottom, see figure 6 and corresponding text at column 3, line 58-column 4, line 7, and flange and bolt attachments 46 between the pipe sections and the header as shown in figure 1 and discussed at column 2, lines 53-58) .
For claim 27, Pratt further discloses wherein each septum extends upwards from its corresponding removable pipe section (figures 1 and 6).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) and Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt), as applied to claims 18-27 above, and further in view of Miles et al PGPUBS Document US 2018/0305220 (Miles).
For claim 28, Pratt further discloses or suggests where the vessel is a pressure vessel, and usable with or is built to withstand elevated pressures (column 1, lines 42-43 re the tank or vessel having sufficient rigidity and resistance to damage when filled with liquid and column 3, lines 57-65 and column 4, lines 40-48 re welded construction and connection of components).
Pratt is silent regarding whether the pressure vessel is usable with a pressure of 125 psi at 1500 F.
Miles teaches a pressure vessel for water treatment [0034], the vessel rated for use at pressure ranges of up to pressure of 15-125 psi [0047], and at high operating temperatures, thus suggesting an operating temperature of up to 150 degrees F [0046].
It would have been further obvious to have designed the pressure vessel of Pratt, to be designed for a pressure of 125 psi at 1500 F, as taught by Miles, in order to withstand high pressures to assure a long useful operational lifetime , as suggested in [0047].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-32 and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Independent claim 29 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of recitation of “A water treatment method comprising, inserting a plurality of septa into a bottom of a vessel such that the plurality of septa extend no more than than-13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel;
filling the vessel with a water treatment media;
flowing water through the vessel such that the water contacts the water treatment media before flowing through the plurality of septa; and,
cleaning the vessel, all of which is cumulatively taught by the prior art, in view of further recitation of: “removing one of the plurality of septa from the vessel while cleaning the vessel”.
Pratt further discloses the method comprising removing a septum from the vessel (column 2, lines 67-72 and column 3, lines 46-49 re inserting or removing strainers or septum from the tank or vessel) and Soriente also teaches passing backwash gas and/or water through the filter bed located within the tank or vessel, when it gets clogged (column 2, lines 39-45 and column 4, lines 44-56).
However, the prior art lacks a teaching of the method requiring the removing of the septum or strainers from the vessel as being coordinated to occur while the vessel is cleaned, Soriente teaches that backwashing with the treatment material remaining in place is adequate to remove clogging.
Claims 30-32 and 34 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of its dependence on allowable and non-obvious claim 29.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, including amendments to claim 21 regarding specific septa diameter and penetration depth of the septa, and amendment to claim 28 of recitation of a specific pressure vessel pressure and temperature rating. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hansen teaches to provide a partitioning septum in a water treatment anaerobic bioreactor (Abstract), having a septum with a central aperture or hole of approximately 6 inches, thus the diameter of the septum is at least 6 inches [0026]. Hansen teaches motivation is to construct septum of sufficiently large dimensions so as be structurally sufficient [0026].
Additionally, Conley et al patent 2,930,407 teaches insulated metal piping with septum, with significant insulation thickness, and corresponding piping diameter, to have exceedingly low heat transfer (column 1, 7-10 and 40-54 regarding piping septum of 8 inches of diameter as also discussed at column 3, lines 51-58)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
09/28/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
