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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/28/2024. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 “means” or “step” 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: “by means of a filtration system (1)”; “by means of a first and second clamping device (12, 13)”; “by means of a third and fourth clamping device (19, 20)” in claim 1; “by means of a first guide arrangement (25)” in claim 2; “by means of a second guide arrangement (26)” in claim 3; “by means of a first and second clamping device of the first clamping unit (10)”; “by means of a third and fourth clamping device of the second clamping unit (17)” in claim 18; “by means of a first guide arrangement (25)” in claim 19; “by means of a second guide arrangement (26)” in claim 20.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of informal language. The phrase: “for the filtration of liquids and/or melts” should be amended to: “for filtration of liquids and/or melts” or equivalent language.
Claim 29 is objected to as informal because the claim ends with a comma.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
As for claims 1 and 18, the phrase “held clamped as required” is indefinite because it is unclear what degree or condition of clamping is required and no objective standard is provided for determining when the limitation is met.
As for claim 10, the phrase “can be controlled by a control device” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the claim requires that the actuators and/or the control valve are actually controlled by the control device, or merely possess the capacity of being controlled.
Claim 10 recites “the actuators (36)” which is dependent on claim 1 and lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 10 should depend from claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “during renewal of the active filter surface” which is dependent on claim 1 and lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 11 should depend from claim 8.
Claim 12 recites heating the filter element before renewal of the active filter surface which is dependent on claim 1 and lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 12 should depend from claim 8.
Claim 13 recites heating the filter element after renewal of the active filter surface which is dependent on claim 1 and lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 13 should depend from claim 8.
Claim 15 recites “the control device (32)” which is dependent on claim 1 and lacks an antecedent basis. Claim 15 should depend from claim 10.
Claim 16 recites “the pressure sensor (31)”, which is first introduced in claim 14, and further relies upon operation of the control device (32) recited in claim 15. Therefore, claim 16 should depend from claim 15 and be amended to include proper antecedent basis for the recited pressure sensors (31).
As for claims 12 and 13, the phrase “slightly above the respective processing temperature” is a term of degree for which neither the claim nor the specification provides an objective standard for determining the scope of the limitation. Accordingly, it is unclear what temperature range is encompassed by the recited phrase.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Panebianco (EP 2 789 447 A1; hereinafter Panebianco) is the closest prior art because it is directed to the same purpose as the presently claimed invention, namely the filtration of liquids or melts using renewable filter elements in a continuous filtration system.
For claims 1 and 18, Panebianco teaches a method for the filtration of liquids and/or melts containing impurities (suitable for allowing a flow and a screening of contaminated molten material in the direction of the outlet channels (32); page 1, paragraph 1), by means of a filtration system, in which the following steps are carried out:
- providing a housing (figure 4: multi-part housing, reference 14) having a common feed channel (figure 4, reference 30) and a common discharge channel (figure 4; reference 32),
- providing a first filter device having a first inlet channel, a first filter chamber, a band-like first filter element extending through the first filter chamber, a first clamping unit and a first outlet channel, wherein the first inlet channel is fluidically connected to the common feed channel and the first outlet channel is fluidically connected to the common discharge channel, and wherein the first filter element is held on either side of the first filter chamber by means of a first and a second clamping device of the first clamping unit (figure 4, top filter).
- providing a second filter device having a second inlet channel, a second filter chamber, a band-like second filter element extending through the second filter chamber, a second clamping unit and a second outlet channel, wherein the second inlet channel is fluidically connected to the common feed channel and the second outlet channel is fluidically connected to the common discharge channel, and wherein the second filter element is held as required on either side of the second filter chamber by means of a third and a fourth clamping device of the second clamping unit (figure 4, lower filter).
- providing the liquid and/or melt that is to be filtered (claim 1) in a fluid state of matter and feeding the liquid and/or melt into the common feed channel, wherein the liquid and/or melt is conveyed onwards to the common discharge channel through at least one of the filter devices and, in so doing, is filtered (during the passage of the molten material, the screening support 42 retains the impurities contained in the molten material; paragraph 37),
Panebianco further teaches that each of clapping device comprises a clamping element (reference 36) and an actuator member (reference 37) interacting therewith to selectively clamp and release the filter strip.
Panebianco doesn't teach or fairly suggest:
The clamping element being guided in a direction normal to the flat side of the filter element.
The actuating element being guided in a directional parallel to the flat side of the filter element.
The contact surfaces having an oblique longitudinal orientation.
The movement of the actuating element translating into clamping and release movement through interaction of the oblique surfaces.
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the core inventive concept with inclined or oblique contact surfaces and corresponding normal/parallel movement directions of the clamping and actuating elements.
Therefore, it would have not been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clamping arrangement of Panebianco to arrive at the claimed invention. Panebianco permits lateral movement of the clapping structure and does not distinguish the problem addressed by the present invention, namely, maintaining accurate positioning of the band shaped filter element during clamping and release operations while minimizing filter displacement during the clamping process.
The claimed arrangement exemplified in figure 5, changes the manner in which clamping forces are generated and transmitted. Specifically, the claimed invention separates the movement directions of the clamping and actuating components such that the clamping element moves normal to the filter surface while the actuating element moves parallel to the filter surface. The interaction of the obliquely oriented contact surfaces converts actuator motion into clamping and release motion. As a result, the filter element is clamped with a force directly substantially perpendicular to its surface, thereby reducing filter displacement during clamping, and improving positioning accuracy during filter renewal operations.
There is no indication in Panebianco to suggest that the clamping mechanism should be redesigned to employ orthogonal movement directions for the clamping elements, nor does Panebianco suggest the use of inclined or oblique contact surfaces to transform actuator movement into clamping movement. Such modification would require a substantial reconfiguration of the clapping movement of Panebianco rather than the predictable substitution of one known element for another.
Therefore, the examiner finds that the claimed clamping and actuating arrangement resided in independent claims 1 and 18 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The recited arrangement to constitute an allowable subject matter.
Since dependent claims 2-17 and 19-30 contain all of the features of the respective independent claims, the subject matter of these claims is likewise allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bachar El Haj Hassan whose telephone number is (571)270-0121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Insuk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BACHAR EL HAJ HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights