DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-31 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 15-31) in the reply filed on 8/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 15, 19 and 23-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/705,241 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations claims are disclosed by the claims of the copending application. The backflushing device of the instant claims is equivalent to the first and second drain valves of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 15-31 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 15:
Line 4 refers to “a single filter element”. It is not clear if this is a single filter element of the “plurality of filter elements” or an additional single filter element.
Lien 5 refers to “a plurality of filter elements”. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of filter elements”, more than one of the “plurality of filter elements” or an additional plurality of filter elements.
The claim refers to “the filtered and backflushed polymer melt”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim states “the filter device carrying out a method…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is directed to the method of operation, while the claim itself is directed to a device it is not clear if the device must structurally be in a backflushing or basic mode of operation. Method limitations within a device claim render the claim indefinite when it is not clear when direct infringement would occur (see MEPE 2173.05(p)).
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim refers to “a filer element”. It is not clear if this is a filter element of the “plurality of filter elements” or an additional filter element.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim refers to “the inlet port”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. Antecedent basis is provided in claim 18, however claim 19 depends form claim 15.
The claim refers to “a filer element”. It is not clear if this is a filter element of the “plurality of filter elements” or an additional filter element.
The claim refers to “plural filter elements”. It is not clear if this is referring to multiple of the “plurality of filter elements” or additional filter elements.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim refers to “the inlet port”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. There is only support for “at least one inlet port”.
The claim refers to “the region…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the direction of movement…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the relative movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 21:
The claim refers to “the filter element that has just been backflushed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the filter element to be backflushed next”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the filter elements to be backflushed next”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 25:
The claim refers to “the polymer melt…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim uses the phrase “in particular”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
Regarding Claim 27:
The claim refers to “a filer element”. It is not clear if this is a filter element of the “plurality of filter elements” or an additional filter element.
The claim uses the phrase “in particular”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
Regarding Claim 28:
The claim refers to “all the filter chambers”, “the large area filters”, “the drain lines” and “the drainage valves”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations within the claims. There is only support for a first filter chamber, first large are filter, and a firs drain line.
The claim states the features are “each of identical construction”. It is not clear with the construction is identical to as only one of each feature has been required by the claims.
Regarding Claim 29:
The claim refers to “the left and right drain lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 30:
The claim uses the phrase “in particular”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
The claim refers to “the left and right drain lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 31:
The claim refers to “the valves and/or the rotary actuator”, “the melt pump”, and “the throttle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
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) 15-24, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rott et al (US 2003/0136715).
Regarding Claim 15:
Rott teaches the filter device, comprising: a first filter chamber (one of the plurality of filter chambers 61) (see para. 0022) in which a first large-area filter with a plurality of filter elements is located (plurality of filter elements 22) (see para. 0022), a first inlet line (opening 64) to the first filter chamber (see para. 0022), a first drain line (opening 74) from the first filter chamber (see figs. 3A and 3B, para. 0019, 0020, 0022), a backflushing device is provided (contaminant take of line 18) (see para. 0023), which can be connected as required to an inlet side of a single filter element or to inlet sides of a plurality of filter elements, via which the filtered and backflushed polymer melt can be discharged from the filter chamber during a backflushing mode of operation, the filter device carrying out a method wherein during a basic mode of operation, polymer melt to be filtered is fed to the first large-area filter in the filter direction, and filtering is continuously performed via the first large-area filter, in that, during a backflushing mode of operation, at least one filter element is cleaned of contaminants and backflushed by reversing the flow direction of the filtered polymer melt and passing it through the filter element. As the claim is directed to a device method step only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same method. As the backwashing device of Rott can backwash individual filter elements the claimed limitations are met (see para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 16:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15-wherein the backflushing device is designed to be rotatable with respect to the large-area filter (rotate about axis D) (see para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 17:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the large-area filter is designed to be rotatable with respect to the backflushing device (rotate about axis D) (see para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 18:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device is finger-shaped (any elongated shape is considered to be “finger-shaped”) and has at least one inlet port (opening 29) associated with a filter element (see para. 0023, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device can be fluidically connected via the inlet port to an inlet side of a filter element ,or to plural inlet sides of plural filter elements or plural inlet ports to plural inlet sides of plural filter elements (see para. 0023, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 18, wherein the large-area filter with the filter elements has an associated closed parking area on the inlet side to the filter element and the backflushing device , in which parking area the backflushing device is arranged when no backflushing operation is running, in which case the inlet port is closed or the inlet ports are closed and/or the region on the feed side between filter elements, that are arranged at a distance from one another in the direction of movement of the large-area filter and/or the backflushing device , is of a closed design (offset by half the angle of the chambers), so that the inlet port or the inlet ports of the backflushing devices are closed during the relative movement of the backflushing device with respect to the large-area filter from one backflushing process to the next (see para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 21:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device is designed and controllable in such a way that the filter element that has just been backflushed is no longer connected to the backflushing device when the filter element to be backflushed next, or the filter elements to be backflushed next, are connected to the backflushing device (only connected to one set of filters at a time) (see para. 0021, fig, 1).
Regarding Claim 22:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device and the large-area filter interact with a rotary actuator each (drive mechanism) (see para. 0026), or that either the backflushing device or the large-area filter interacts with a rotary actuator.
Regarding Claim 23:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device includes a shut-off valve (outflow valve) which can be used to close and release a drain port via which the backflushed polymer melt can be discharged (see para. 0024), and/or interacts with a pump, which is used to convey out the polymer melt conveyed during backflushing via the backflushing device.
Regarding Claim 24:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the backflushing device includes an adjustable and/or connectable throttle (see para. 0005).
Regarding Claim 26:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein a second filter chamber is provided (second of the plurality of chambers 61), in which a second large-area filter with a plurality of filter elements is located (plurality of filter elements 22) (see para. 0022), and that a second inlet line (opening 64) to the second filter chamber, a second drain line (opening 74) from the second filter chamber are provided (each chamber contains its own set of filters, inlet and drain lines) (see figs. 3A and 3B, para. 0019, 0020, 0022).
Regarding Claim 27:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein a filter element is constituted by a filter candle through which the polymer melt to be filtered flows, in particular from the inside to the outside, during the basic mode of operation (see para. 0021).
Regarding Claim 28:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein all the filter chambers , the large-area filters , the drain lines and/or the drainage valves are each of identical construction (All elements in each chamber appear to be identical) (see figs. 3A, 3B).
Regarding Claim 30:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein a throttle, in particular an adjustable and/or connectable throttle, is arranged in a common drain line (flushing cock is within the drain line) or in the first and second drain lines (see para. 0005).
Claim(s) 15, 25, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rott et al (DE 10024402, English machine translation provided, hereafter referred to as ‘402).
Regarding Claim 15:
‘402 teaches the filter device, comprising: a first filter chamber (filter housing 11) in which a first large-area filter with a plurality of filter elements (filter set 20) is located (see pg. 5, 9th paragraph), a first inlet line (filter inlet 3) to the first filter chamber (see pg. 5 11th paragraph), a first drain line (filtrate outlet 8) (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph) from the first filter chamber, a backflushing device is provided (see pg. 6, 3rd paragraph), which can be connected as required to an inlet side of a single filter element or to inlet sides of a plurality of filter elements , via which the filtered and backflushed polymer melt can be discharged from the filter chamber during a backflushing mode of operation, the filter device carrying out a method wherein during a basic mode of operation, polymer melt to be filtered is fed to the first large-area filter in the filter direction, and filtering is continuously performed via the first large-area filter, in that, during a backflushing mode of operation, at least one filter element is cleaned of contaminants and backflushed by reversing the flow direction of the filtered polymer melt and passing it through the filter element. As the claim is directed to a device method step only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same method. As the backwashing device of ‘402 can backwash individual filter elements the claimed limitations are met (see para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 25:
‘402 teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein pressure sensors (measuring device) are provided for determining the pressure prevailing in the polymer melt, in particular upstream and downstream of the filter chamber, and/or upstream of the large-area filter and downstream of the large-area filter each in the filter chamber (see pg. 9, claim 13).
Regarding Claim 31:
‘402 teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein the valves and/or the rotary actuator are designed to be hydraulically and/or electrically actuated (drain valve electrically actuated), that a control device is provided, which controls the valves, the rotary actuator, the melt pump, the throttle and/or the backflushing device for setting the basic and backflushing modes of operation, respectively (see pg. 9, claim 13).
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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rott et al (US 2003/0136715) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ecabert et al (USPN 4,462,916).
Regarding Claim 29:
Rott teaches the filter device according to claim 15, wherein a suction (flushing suction) is arranged in a common drain line (applied in take -off line 18) or in the left and right drain lines (see para. 0024).
Rott does not teach that the suction is provided by a melt pump.
Ecabert teaches a filter device in which suction is provided by a melt pump (suction pump) in a drain line (see col. 2 lines 34-37).
Rott and Ecabert are analogous inventions in the art of rotary backwashing filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pump of Ecabert to the common drain line of Rott because it is the simple addition of a known suction applying device to a location requiring suction, obviously resulting in material being removed from the filter, with an expectation of success.
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 9/29/2026
