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 1-12 and 17-18 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 1 recites “a heavy solution” in the first limitation but also recites “a heavy solution” in the second limitation. It is unclear if the two references of “a heavy solution” are referring to the same or different solution. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed the references are the same heavy solution.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2015/0238974 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a purification apparatus comprising: a heavy solution reservoir (221) capable of storing a heavy solution; a container (210) for separating, with the solution supplied from the heavy solution reservoir, a sample based on a specific gravity difference; a discharge pipe (255) through which a supernatant of the sample in the container is discharged; a first pipe (258 and pipe after separator 260) through which a waste solution from the container is discharged, the first pipe being provided below the discharge pipe; a second pipe (294) through which the heavy solution from the first pipe is sent to the heavy solution reservoir; and a filter unit (264) provided in the second pipe to remove a contaminant from the heavy solution discharged through the first pipe (Fig. 2 and [0023]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a pump (269) as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a waste solution reservoir (267 268) as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches a waste solution reservoir (267 268) as claimed and a separator (260) located between the container and the first pipe when the first pipe is the portion after separator leading to the branching off the second pipe (Fig. 2). It is noted that Wang teaches the separator is a SWECO model number XS48S88, which is a vibratory screen/mesh separator.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2015/0238974 in IDS) in view of Hoek et al. (US 2016/0046503 in IDS).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 17-18, Wang fails to teach a sensor capable of determining turbidity or completion of filtering as claimed. Hoek teaches that it is known to monitor filter in order to determine the condition of the filter and estimate lifetime of said filter. The various parameters sensed would include pressure, filtrate flow rate, and filtrate quality, such as turbidity ([0132]). It is noted that the various parameters sensed would include determining turbidity or completion of filtering as claimed. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include sensors as claimed in order determine the condition of the filter and estimate the lifetime of the filter.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2015/0238974 in IDS) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0307975).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches that a filter is used but fails to teach a first and second filter of varying pore sizes as claimed. Johnson teaches that for filtering a liquid, it is known to provide single or multiple filters in series wherein downstream filters have smaller pore size in order to ensure that the filtered liquid is substantially free of particles ([0030]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple filters in series as such a configuration is well known and allows for successive treatment by filters with smaller pore sizes thereby ensuring removal of any particles/debris as desired in Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights