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 I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 9/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, 13, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: Grammatical error in lines 7 and 9: “gasses”. The suggested change is: “gases”.
Claim 11: Grammatical error in line 3: “gasses”. The suggested change is: “gases”.
Claim 13: Grammatical error in lines 8 and 10: “gasses”. The suggested change is: “gases”.
Claim 16: Grammatical error in line 8: “gasses”. The suggested change is: “gases”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 10, 11, 14-16 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation: “the skimming trough” in line 1. Since claim 3 requires multiple feed tanks it is unclear which of the plurality of skimming troughs that correspond to the plurality of feed tanks is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much differentiation is being claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-16 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Yano et al. (US4319930A). Yano et al. teaches a multi-stage can washer (see abstract, column 1, lines 5-17) comprising: a conveyor system 5 capable of transporting cans through the multi-stage can washer (see column 3, lines 37-52, figure 2); a piping system 21-24 capable of transporting water to a number of nozzles 16-19 capable of spraying the water onto cans being transported by the conveyor system 5 (see figure 2, column 3, lines 37-52); one or more feed tanks 1-4 capable of providing water to the piping system 21-24 and collecting water sprayed by the nozzles 16-19 (see figure 2, column 1, lines 61-68). Yano et al. does not teach that each feed tank includes a skimming trough structured to skim water from a top portion of the feed tank. Canzoneri et al. teaches a system for removing suspended matter from liquid (see abstract) and a skimming trough 54 structured to skim water from a top portion of the feed tank 12 thereby allowing for the removal of oils and suspended solids from the liquid (see figures 1-5, column 5, line 29 – column 6, line 44). Since Yano et al. teaches a system that collects and reuses liquid and Canzoneri et al. teaches a system for removing suspended matter from liquid it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that each feed tank in the system by Yano et al. may include a skimming trough structured to skim water from a top portion of the feed tank so as to allow for the removal of oils and suspended solids from the liquid, as shown to be known and conventional by Canzoneri et al. Yano et al. does not teach a water treatment system structured to receive contaminated water from the skimming trough corresponding to a last one of the one or more feed tanks, to clean the contaminated water, and to provide the cleaned water to a first one of the one or more feed tanks, the water treatment system including: a pressure vessel structured to mix ozone or air with the contaminated water to create gaseous water; a frothing cell structured to cause bubbles to form in the gaseous water to form a froth, to skim off and dispose of the froth, to degas the gaseous water to remove remaining gases, and to output degassed water. Jackson (US4094783A) teaches a liquid treatment and recycling system (see abstract) and that the water treatment system may include a pressure vessel 37/80/82 capable of mixing air with contaminated water to create gaseous water (see column 3, lines 45-63, figures 2-4); a frothing cell 30/67/67a capable of causing bubbles to form in the gaseous water to form a froth, to skim off and dispose of the froth (via 44/76/76a), to degas the gaseous water to remove remaining gases (via 35/70/70a), and to output degassed water (via 54/96/96a); thereby allowing for efficient cleaning of process liquid (see column 1, lines 31-37, column 3, line 63-column 4, line 9, figures 2-4). Since Yano et al. teaches a system that collects and reuses liquid and Jackson teaches a liquid treatment and recycling system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a water treatment system including a pressure vessel and frothing cell may be included in the modified system by Yano et al. to receive contaminated water from the skimming trough corresponding to a last one of the one or more feed tanks, to clean the contaminated water, and to provide the cleaned water to a first one of the one or more feed tanks, in an efficient water cleaning system, as shown to be known and conventional by Jackson. Yano et al. does not teach/disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 12, including the following limitations of claim 1: “…a filtration system structured to receive the degassed water, to filter solid particles from the degassed water to form cleaned water, and to provide the cleaned water to a first one of the one or more feed tanks”, as well as the following limitations of claim 12: “…a filtration system structured to receive the degassed water, to filter solid particles from the degassed water to form cleaned water, and to output the cleaned water”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights