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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the German application #DE202021105521.9.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the discharge opening 14 (recited in claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity and efficiency in the examination process (compact prosecution), the following terms as outlined below are interpreted, but not limited to, the following:
Geodetic – the orientation relative to the top and bottom of the device. The examiner would like to note, that the dictionary definition of the term geodetic, not in the context of this invention, has reference to the Earth’s magnetic field and gravitational forces. As this is not supported in the specification, the examiner suggests for clarity, to remove the term from the claims, given the interpretation renders “geodetic” or variations of, unnecessary.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 17, 19, 22-25, and 28 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. Claims 6-7, 9-12, 17, 19, and 22-24 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the phrasing “geodetically at the bottom”, “the bottom” does not have antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the discharge opening (14)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the examiner believes the applicant intended to recite “the discharge opening (24)”, and the claim will be interpreted as such.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 consists of redundant antecedent basis. The claim recites, “a filter device (1)”, and in claim 1 it recites, “a filter device (1)”. It is unclear whether each mention of the term refers to the same feature as they both provide antecedent basis. The examiner suggests the applicant to amend the following mention(s) of “a filter device (1)” to be “the filter device (1)” if they refer to the same feature. If the applicant intended for two separate features, then further amended clarity is needed. The examiner will interpret as if each instance of the term “a filter device (1)” is intended to be the same feature, written as “the filter device (1)”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronnberg (WO2014125056A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ronnberg discloses such a filter device (1) {Abstract} having such a filter housing (10) {Page 7 line 17 re. housing 25} in which is disposed such a filter basket (20) {Page 7 lines 24-25 re. any one of identical filter baskets 6-8} having such passage holes (21), {Page 7 lines 28-29 re. passage holes 45}
wherein such filter inlet (11) of such filter housing (10) {Page 7 line 28 re. filter basket inlet 10} opens into such an interior (22) of such filter basket (20), {Page 12 line 27 re. the interior of the filter basket} and such a filter outlet (12) of such filter housing (10) {Page 7 line 21 re. main outlet 2} leads away from such an outside (23) of such filter basket (20), {Figure 2a See Annotation Below}
PNG
media_image1.png
483
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein such filter basket (20) has such a discharge opening (24) {Page 7 line 28 re. outlet 11} which opens into such a discharge opening (13) of such filter housing (10), {Figure 2a See annotation Below}
PNG
media_image2.png
350
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein such interior (22) of such filter basket (20), by way of such discharge openings (13, 24), is fluidically connected to such a discharge line (30), {Figure 2a and Page 12 line 24 re. backwash outlet 3} wherein such a discharge shut-off unit (31) is disposed in such discharge line (30) {Figure 2a and Page 12 line 24 re. backwash valve 4} in such a way that such a fluid (F) is able to be discharged from such interior (22) of such filter basket (20) by way of such discharge line (30) by activating such discharge shut-off unit (31), {Page 12 lines 23-25}
characterized in that such filter basket (20) is aligned so as to be geodetically horizontal and in such a region (Bl), disposed geodetically at the bottom, does not have any such passage holes (21); and/or such discharge opening (24) of such filter basket (20) is a hole in a circumferential wall of such filter basket (20). {Page 7 lines 12-14 re. mounted in the main flow in a pipe system} It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the filter to be able to fit into piping systems, which are commonly arranged in many configurations, including horizontally.
Regarding claim 2, Ronnberg discloses such filter inlet (11) and such discharge openings (13, 14) are disposed on mutually opposite end regions of such filter basket (20). {Figure 2a re. basket inlet 10 (filter inlet), annotated portion below (discharge opening 13), and outlet 11 (discharge opening 24)}
PNG
media_image3.png
428
329
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ronnberg discloses wherein such a directing element (25) which steers such fluid (F) and/or contaminants in the direction of such discharge opening (24) is disposed in such filter basket (20). {Page 12 lines 10-11 re. partition wall 24 and Figure 2a}
Regarding claim 9, Ronnberg discloses wherein such an inlet shut-off unit (15) is disposed in such filter inlet (11) or such an inlet line (11b) connected thereto. {Page 14 lines 8-10 regarding any of the inlet valves 28-30}
Regarding claim 11, Ronnberg discloses wherein such fluid (F), which is discharged from such interior (22) by way of such discharge shut-off unit (31),
flows from such filter inlet (11) through such interior (22) of such filter basket (20) without passing through such passage holes (21), and/or flows from such filter outlet (12) through such passage holes (21) into such interior (22) and from there to such discharge line (30), and/or such is any other fluid (F, F2) which has been directed into such filter housing (10). {Page 14 lines 10-11 re. backwash valve and water flushing}
Regarding claim 17, Ronnberg discloses such filter device (1) has such a ventilating apparatus (45) by which air and/or such an injection fluid (F2) are/is able to be discharged from such filter housing (10). {Page 13 lines 24-26 re. flushing pipe 20 and liquid streams for the cleaning steps}
Regarding claim 19, Ronnberg discloses such filter housing (10) is partially formed by such an attachment housing (17), wherein such discharge opening (13) of such filter housing (10) formed in such attachment housing (17). {Figure 2a re. how walls 24 and 25c define a separate chamber of the 25 (See Annotation Below)}
PNG
media_image4.png
574
245
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Ronnberg discloses such filter basket (20) is configured to be open on both sides, in particular elongate and/or cylindrical. {Page 14 lines 8-10 re. how any of the inlet valves 28-30 and outlet valves 31-33 are open during normal operation}
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronnberg (WO2014125056A1) in view of Cerisier (FR2791904A1). *Note all teachings from Cerisier are based on the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claim 3, Ronnberg fails to disclose such discharge opening (24) of the filter basket (20) formed in such region (B1), disposed geodetically at such bottom, of such filter basket (20).
Regarding claim 3, Cerisier teaches such discharge opening (24) of the filter basket (20) formed in the region (B1), disposed geodetically at the bottom, of the filter basket (20). {Figure 5 See Annotation Below)} This is advantageous as the particles are retained on the purge side of the filter, allowing the particles to fall towards the purge side with this orientation. {Bottom page 2}}
PNG
media_image5.png
652
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim(s) 3 and later regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the discharge openings of Ronnberg with discharges of Cerisier because, both of these inventions utilize a basket-style filter for the removal of particles from a waste stream. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify the discharge openings of Ronnberg with the discharges of Cerisier as the orientation of the discharge openings being at the bottom portion of the filter basket allows for filtered particles to fall away from the basket with the passive assistance of gravity, thus reducing mechanical costs, which simultaneously lessens the chances of the filters to be clogged, which would require time and energy to dismantle and unclog. {Cerisier, Bottom page 2}
Regarding claim 6, Ronnberg fails to disclose that wherein such discharge openings (13, 24) are aligned so as to be geodetically downward.
Regarding claim 6, Cerisier teaches that wherein such discharge openings (13, 24) are aligned so as to be geodetically downward. {Figure 5 and Bottom page 2 re. gravity filtration on the purge side} It would be obvious to modify the discharge openings of Ronnberg with the discharge openings of Cerisier in a downward orientation as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 10, Ronnberg fails to disclose wherein such an outlet shut-off unit (16) is disposed in such filter outlet (12) or such an outlet line (12b) connected thereto.
Regarding claim 10, Cerisier teaches such an outlet shut-off unit (16) is disposed in such filter outlet (12) or such an outlet line (12b) connected thereto. {Top page 4 re. solenoid valve 23 on the liquid outlet}
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet of Ronnberg with the outlet valve of Cerisier because, these invention both utilize a basket filter, implemented in a water distribution system, which have inlets and outlets leading to additional system components. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to add the outlet valve of Cerisier to Ronnberg because the solenoid valves of Cerisier allows for the automation of the flow paths of this device, which can be programmed to run the cleaning sequence without the need for user intervention. {Cerisier, Top page 4 re. automation purposes}
Regarding claim 12, Ronnberg fails to disclose such an injection apparatus (40) opens into such filter housing (10) by way of such an injection opening (41), such a fluid (F) being able to be forced from such filter housing (10) into such filter inlet (11) and/or such filter outlet (12) and/or such discharge line (30) by injecting such an injection fluid (F2) by way of such injection opening (41).
Regarding claim 12, Cerisier teaches such an injection apparatus (40) opens into such filter housing (10) {Figure 5 and Middle page 5 re. injection nozzle 25, conduit 26, solenoid valve 27} by way of such an injection opening (41), {Middle page 5 re. fluid injection nozzle 25} such a fluid (F) being able to be forced from such filter housing (10) into such filter inlet (11) and/or such filter outlet (12) and/or such discharge line (30) {Middle page 25 re. supplying nozzle 25 with wash water and recovering with purge conduit 5} by injecting such an injection fluid (F2) by way of such injection opening (41). {Middle page 5 re. supplying nozzle 25 with wash water}
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Ronnberg with the addition of the injection apparatus of Cerisier because the inventions appear within a narrow range of analogous art wherein a basket filter is attached to water treatment and pumping/distribution system. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify Ronnberg with the addition of the injection system of Cerisier as this injection system can be paired to the programming device to automate the cleaning method, allowing the filter to be cleaned using a backflow method, without the need to remove the filter from the apparatus. {Cerisier, Top page 4 re. automating the cleaning}
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronnberg (WO2014125056A1) in view of Thompson (AU632237B2).
Regarding claim 22, Ronnberg fails to disclose such filter housing (10) has such a filter cover (19) through which such filter basket (20) is removable.
Regarding claim 22, Thompson teaches such filter housing (10) has such a filter cover (19) through which such filter basket (20) is removable. {Page 11 lines 15-18 re. lid 14}
Regarding claim 22, and later claims 23-24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ronnberg with the removable lid of Thompson because, these invention both have a similar basket filtration structure, with similar functions of removing large impurities from a water stream. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Ronnberg with the removable lid portion of Thompson as the removable lid allows for easy access for maintenance of the internals of the filter screen and chamber, reducing downtime of the system. {Thompson, Bottom page 16 – Top page 17 regarding cleaning the filter screen}
Regarding claim 23, Ronnberg fails to disclose wherein such filter inlet (11) opens into such interior (22) of such filter basket (20) on a side of the latter that lies opposite such filter cover (18).
Regarding claim 23, Thompson teaches wherein such filter inlet (11) opens into such interior (22) of such filter basket (20) on a side of the latter that lies opposite such filter cover (18). {Figure 1 re. inlet aperture 32 and lid 14} It would be obvious to modify Ronnberg to the orientation of Thompson as applied to claim 22 above, for easy access of the filtration unit, through the removable lid. {Thompson, Top page 17}
Regarding claim 24, Ronnberg discloses wherein such filter basket (20) extends in a tubular manner. {Figure 1 re. any one of the filter baskets 6-8}
Regarding claim 24, Ronnberg fails to disclose wherein such filter basket is between the filter cover (19) and the filter inlet (11).
Regarding claim 24, Thompson teaches wherein such filter basket is between such filter cover (19) and such filter inlet (11). {Figure 1 re. inlet aperture 32, filter screen 18, and lid 14} It would be obvious to modify Ronnberg to this orientation of Thompson as applied to claim 22 above, for easy access to the filtration unit, through the removable lid. {Thompson, Top page 17}
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronnberg (WO2014125056A1) in view of Shannon (DE202021000823U1). *Note all teachings from Shannon are based on the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claim 28, Ronnberg fails to disclose such a pump device (100) having such a conveying pump (101) which is disposed between such a suction line (102) and such a pressure line (103), and having such a filter device (1) as claimed in claim 1 wherein such filter basket (20) of such a filter device (1) is disposed in such suction line (102).
Regarding claim 28, Shannon teaches such a pump device (100) having such a conveying pump {[0012] re. pump} and having such a filter device (1) as claimed in claim 1 wherein such filter basket (20) of such a filter device (1) is disposed in such suction line (102). {[0012] regarding the water draw into the filter by the pump} While Shannon is silent to the conveying pump disposed between such a suction line (102) and such a pressure line (103), given the definition of a pump, "a device that raises, transfers, delivers, or compresses fluids or that attenuates gases especially by suction or pressure or both" Merriam-Webster. (n.d.), this limitation is inherent and thus the pump disclosed in Shannon teaches a pressure and suction line.
Regarding claim(s) 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ronnberg with the addition of a pump device of Shannon because, while Ronnberg does not disclose a pump in the description of their invention, they do disclose their filtration device utilizes no additional pumping capacity for operation, which teaches some mechanism that can produce a pumping force is required. {Ronnberg Top page 4 re. pumping capacity} One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the pump and location of the filter of Shannon with the invention of Ronnberg as positioning the filter on the suction line of the pumping device as it prevents impurities from the water line to block and clog the pumps internal components, opposed to if the filter device was on the pressure side of the pump. {Shannon, [0001]}
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bruck (US20160131005A1) and Lai (CN105797457A). *Note the English, machine-translated version of Lai is attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights