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 applicant’s claim for foreign priority (RU2021139683, filed on December 29, 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a tank cover.” The specification does not appear to provide written description support for a tank cover. The specification identifies the corresponding upper structure as “ceiling 1 of the tank” and states that vertical shaft 4 is mounted in an inlet made in the ceiling 1 of the tank (¶[0023]). A ceiling of a tank does not necessarily correspond to a tank cover, which implies a separate cover or lid structure. The specification therefore does not reasonably convey possession of a tank cover as claimed. Claims 2–5, which depend from Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 1-5 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 the limitation “an inlet made in a tank cover.” The meaning of this limitation is unclear. The phrase “made in” does not clearly indicate whether the claimed inlet is an opening formed through a tank cover, an inlet component installed in a tank cover, or another structural relationship between the inlet and the tank cover. The specification states that vertical shaft 4 is mounted in an inlet made in the ceiling 1 of the tank (¶[0023]). For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as reciting an inlet formed in a ceiling of the tank. Claims 2–5, which depend from Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a window is made in the vertical shaft” and “the window is made in the lower part of the vertical shaft.” The meaning of these limitations is unclear. The phrase “made in” does not clearly define the structural relationship between the window and the vertical shaft. It is unclear whether the claimed window is an opening formed through a wall of the vertical shaft, an outlet connected to the vertical shaft, or another structure associated with the vertical shaft. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as reciting an outlet opening formed through a lower side wall of the vertical shaft. Claims 2–5, which depend from Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILDENBLAT et al. (SU1733045A1, hereinafter GILDENBLAT).
Regarding Claim 1, GILDENBLAT discloses a suspended-particle trap used in a boron-solution tank to capture fibrous and wadding-like debris produced by destruction of heat insulation, such as superfine basalt or fiberglass.
FIG. 1 illustrates the suspended-particle trap as a tank arrangement. Tank 1 includes receiving opening 2 in ceiling 3 for supplying contaminated water and drain opening 4 for draining purified water. Second cleaning stage 5 is positioned before drain opening 4 and includes filtering grids for cleaning the water before discharge. First cleaning stage 15 includes shaft 16, parallel sections 17, vertical grids 18, and pipe 19 connecting shaft 16 to sections 17. Shaft 16 is positioned below receiving opening 2 and extends to the bottom of tank 1. The wall of shaft 16 includes windows 20 and 21, and lower hole 22 receives pipe 19 to connect shaft 16 with sections 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of GILDENBLAT
Regarding the limitation that the liquid discharge is “directed to a side opposite to the filtering device,” the direction of discharge from a lower shaft opening is a routine hydraulic design consideration. In fluid-handling tank design, flow-path direction is known to affect hydraulic residence time, local velocity, impingement, short-circuit flow, and settling behavior. A person skilled in the art would have recognized that directing debris-laden discharge away from the filtering device is one of several known flow-path arrangements for increasing the distance and hydraulic residence time between the shaft outlet and the filtering device, reducing short-circuit flow and direct impact of the incoming stream on the filtering device, decreasing local flow velocity near the filtering device, and allowing suspended debris to settle before the water reaches the filtering device.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILDENBLAT as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CAI (CN201078958Y).
Regarding Claims 2-4, GILDENBLAT makes obvious the tank for garbage filtration and collection of Claim 1. However, GILDENBLAT does not explicitly disclose “the upper part of the vertical shaft is made in the form of a funnel” of Claim 2, “the walls of the vertical shaft are provided with vertical ribs” of Claim 3, and “the funnel walls are provided with horizontal ribs” of Claim 4.
CAI discloses an oil-removal device for an aquarium filter, particularly a water-intake structure for removing oil from the water surface (¶[0002]).
FIG. 1 illustrates an aquarium filter water-intake structure including inlet pipe 1 and funnel cup 2. Inlet pipe 1 is formed from connected hollow pipes, including fixed hollow pipe 11, hollow pipe 12, and tail pipe 13. Funnel cup 2 is arranged on the inlet pipe and includes constricted opening 21, vertical holes 22 around its crown, and hollow body 23 (¶[0021]).
PNG
media_image2.png
659
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CAI
FIG. 3 illustrates the connection structure of water inlet pipe 1. Fixed hollow pipe 11 includes axially protruding ribs 111 on its inner wall. Hollow pipe 12 is fitted with fixed hollow pipe 11 and includes convex ring 121 at its upper end, axial ribs 122 on a lower portion of its inner wall, and annular through holes 123 around its periphery. Tail pipe 13 is fitted with hollow pipe 12 and includes convex rings 131 on its outer wall. Water enters through holes 22 and 123 and then flows through the gap between hollow pipe 12 and tail pipe 13, so that the fitted hollow pipes and funnel cup 2 form a double-layer water inlet arrangement (¶[0021]).
PNG
media_image3.png
659
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 of CAI
The funnel cup, axial ribs, and circumferential convex rings disclosed by CAI represent a known fluid-intake-head configuration for forming a stable, controlled water-intake structure. Such a configuration guides liquid into an inlet pipe through a defined flow path while maintaining the relative positioning and fit of the inlet-pipe components. In view of GILDENBLAT’s vertical shaft positioned below the receiving opening in the suspended-particle trap, a person skilled in the art would have applied the fluid-intake-head configuration to the upper portion of the shaft, including a funnel at the shaft inlet, circumferential convex rings (i.e., horizontal ribs) at the funnel portion, and axial ribs (i.e., vertical ribs) along the shaft, to predictably guide incoming liquid into the shaft with a stable and controlled inlet structure (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP § 2143A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fluid-intake-head configuration, as disclosed by CAI, into the shaft inlet arrangement in the suspended-particle trap by GILDENBLAT.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILDENBLAT in view of CAI as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of SINGLETON et al. (US6416674, hereinafter SINGLETON).
Regarding Claim 5, modified GILDENBLAT makes obvious the tank for garbage filtration and collection of Claim 2. However, modified GILDENBLAT does not explicitly disclose “a guard is installed on top of the funnel.”
SINGLETON discloses a silt guard mounted over a drainage inlet to prevent solid particles and debris from entering while allowing water to drain therethrough (Col. 1, Lns. 17-23).
FIG. 3 illustrates silt guard or filtering device 10 mounted over drop inlet 11 of storm water drainage system 12. Silt guard 10 is designed for covering and protecting the open drop inlet to prevent solid particles such as silt and debris from collecting within underground drainage pipes 13 (Col. 5, Lns. 14-34). Silt guard 10 is mounted over the open upper end of the inlet, extends above open upper end 16, and is sized and shaped to fit over and seat upon upper rim 18 of drop inlet 11 (Col. 5, Lns. 52-65). Top portion 23 covers or encloses body portion 22, such that access into drop inlet 11 or drainage pipe 13 is barred or blocked (Col. 6, Ln. 65 - Col. 7, Ln. 10).
PNG
media_image4.png
659
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 of SINGLETON
The silt guard disclosed by SINGLETON holds dirt and debris out of the drop inlet and pipe while permitting runoff water to pass therethrough and drain into the drop inlet (Col. 9, Ln. 60 - Col. 10, Ln. 2). In view of modified GILDENBLAT’s shaft inlet arrangement having a funnel at the shaft inlet, a person skilled in the art would have installed the silt guard over the funnel to predictably prevent debris from entering the shaft while permitting liquid to enter the shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the silt guard, as disclosed by SINGLETON, into the shaft inlet arrangement in the suspended-particle trap by modified GILDENBLAT.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights