DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 3-6, and 13-16 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 3:
Claim 3 refers to “a centrally located primary section” and “first and second secondary sections”. However claim 2, from which it depends, already requires a “primary section” and “a secondary section”. It is therefore not clear if these are additional sections or further limiting the primary and secondary section of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim refers to “a centrally located secondary section” and “first and second primary sections”. However claim 2, from which it depends, already requires a “primary section” and “a secondary section”. It is therefore not clear if these are additional sections or further limiting the primary and secondary section of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 refers to “a centrally located primary section” and “first and second secondary sections”. However claim 2, from which it depends, already requires a “primary section” and “a secondary section”. It is therefore not clear if these are additional sections or further limiting the primary and secondary section of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim refers to “a centrally located secondary section” and “first and second primary sections”. However claim 2, from which it depends, already requires a “primary section” and “a secondary section”. It is therefore not clear if these are additional sections or further limiting the primary and secondary section of claim 2.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends form claim 18, however it contains only the limitations of claim 18. Therefore claim 19 does not further limit claim 18 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cedron (EP 3000517).
Regarding Claim 11:
Cedron teaches the screen filter suction nozzle comprising: an internal passageway (space between expansion tank 27 and opening) (see fig. 6) terminating in an orifice (suction port 22) (see para. 0019), the orifice having a longitudinal extension (L), a width (W) (direction Y-Y) measured along a width direction (DW) perpendicular to the longitudinal extension (L), and a central nozzle axis (Z) perpendicular to both longitudinal extension (L) and the width direction (DW) (see para. 0023); wherein: the width (W) of the orifice changes along its longitudinal extension (L) (slit tapers) (see para. 0024); and in cross-sections of the suction nozzle taken perpendicular to the central nozzle axis (Z), the internal passageway has a constant cross-sectional shape matching that of the orifice, for at least 50% of the length of the suction nozzle (shape of does not change in the internal passageway) (see figs. 6 and 7) .
Regarding Claim 12:
Cedron teaches the screen filter suction nozzle of claim 11, wherein each orifice comprises a primary section (portion 24) adjoining a secondary section (central portion 23), the primary section being wider than the secondary section (see para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 15:
Cedron teaches the screen filter suction nozzle of claim 12, wherein along its longitudinal extension, the orifice comprises a centrally located secondary section adjoining first and second primary sections, one on either side of the secondary section (see para. 0024).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al (US 2021/0362080) in view of Cedron (EP 3000517).
Regarding Claim 1:
Granot teaches the screen filter having a filter axis (X), and comprising: an outer housing extending along the filter axis (X) (filtering housing 110) (see para. 0155); a screen located in the outer housing and configured for removing dirt from liquid flowing through the outer housing, the screen being formed about the filter axis (X) (filtering member 106) (see para. 0154); and a cleaning assembly (suction module 122) for cleaning the screen, the cleaning assembly comprising: one or more suction nozzles (suction nozzles 124) (see para. 0134) arranged for reciprocating movement back and forth along the filter axis (X) while simultaneously rotating about said filter axis (X) (rotate and more up and down) (see para. 0135), each suction nozzle comprising an internal passageway terminating in an orifice through which the suction nozzle opens out towards the screen (as close as possible to the filter surface) (see para. 0136, fig. 3F); wherein: each orifice has a longitudinal extension (L) extending parallel to the filter axis (X), a radially directed central nozzle axis (Z) perpendicular to the longitudinal extension (L) (see figs. 3G).
Granot does not teach a width (W) of the orifice changes along its longitudinal extension (L).
Cedron teaches a suction nozzle with an orifice, wherein each orifice has a longitudinal extension (L) extending parallel to the filter axis (X), a radially directed central nozzle axis (Z) perpendicular to the longitudinal extension (L) and a width (W) of the orifice changes along its longitudinal extension (L) (see para. 0023-0024).
Granot and Cedron are analogous invention in the art of self-cleaning filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the suction nozzles of Granot with the suction nozzles of Cedron because the configuration of Cedron allows uniform suction to be created along the longitudinal extent of the slit (see Cedron para. 0024) and because it is the simple substitution of one known orifice configuration with another known orifice configuration, obviously resulting in debris being able to be removed from the filter screen, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Granot, as modified, teaches the screen filter of claim 1, wherein each orifice comprises a primary section (portion 24) adjoining a secondary section (central portion 23), the primary section being wider than the secondary section (see Cedron para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 5:
Granot, as modified, teaches the screen filter suction nozzle of claim 12, wherein along its longitudinal extension, the orifice comprises a centrally located secondary section adjoining first and second primary sections, one on either side of the secondary section (see Cedron para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 10:
Granot, as modified teaches the screen filter of claim 1, wherein: in cross-sections of the suction nozzle taken perpendicular to the central nozzle axis (Z), the internal passageway has a constant cross-sectional shape matching that of the orifice, for at least 50% of the length of the suction nozzle (shape of does not change in the internal passageway) (see Cedron figs. 6 and 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the specific orifice configurations claimed in claims 3, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 16-20. Although an orifice with changing width and primary and secondary sections is disclosed by Cedron it would not have been obvious to modify Cedron to the claimed configuration because Cedron teaches that the specific tapered shape is desirable and no motivation is provided in this or related prior arts for different configurations with changing widths.
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 7/16/2026
Prosecution Insights