DETAILED ACTION
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 2-8 and 10-14 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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-14 are directed to “The line pre-filtration assembly of claim 1…” and “The liner pre-filtration assembly of claim 9…” respectively. However, both claims 1 and 9 are directed to “A pre-filtration assembly…” It is unclear if the claims are further limiting the assembly of claims 1 or 9 or some other assembly.
Claims 7 and 12 recite, “…a gravel guard formed in a bracket or crescent shape…” It is unclear what a bracket shape is. A bracket is not an art recognized shape or structure and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the precise metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes any shape for the gravel guard is assumed to meet the limitations of the claim.
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.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokrzycki 2003/0141230 in view of Orozco et al. US 2004/0232057.
Claim 1, Mokrzycki teaches a pre-filtration assembly comprising: a mounting wall (34) having an opening therethrough and mounting brackets (at 82), the mounting wall further having a basin (28) extending perpendicularly from a front side of the mounting wall, the basing having a lip (the upper edge) extending perpendicularly therefrom, a liner box (100) disposed within the mounting wall mounting brackets, the liner box having a filter media (50) disposed therein, and a pre-filter grating (44) disposed on the mounting wall front side over the opening (fig. 1-6). Mokrzycki does not teach a pre-filter material between the pre-filter grating and the mounting wall opening.
Orozco teaches a pre-filtration assembly comprising: a mounting wall (66) having an opening (at 67) therethrough, the mounting wall further having a basin (60) extending from a front side of the mounting wall, the basin having a lip extending perpendicularly therefrom, a liner box (67) disposed within the mounting wall, the liner box having a filter media (30) disposed therein and a pre-filter grating (68) disposed on the mounting wall front side over the opening, the pre-filter grating further securing a pre-filter material between the pre-filter grating and the mounting wall opening (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pre-filter material of Orozco because it allows for an attractant to be used to restrict the flow of heavy metals and oils through the system (par 45-46).
Claims 2 and 7-8, Mokrzycki further teaches knobs (bolts) disposed near the peripheral edges of the mounting wall brackets, the knobs having posts which push or pull into or away from the mounting wall upon rotation of the knobs (fig. 1-6, par 39); and a gravel guard/permeable grate (the grating on the top of 28) in a bracket shape disposed around the outside of the mounting wall basin over the mounting wall opening (fig. 1-6).
Claims 3-4, Mokrzycki does not teach the liner box being angled 10-30 degrees or 20 degrees with respect to the mounting wall. The recitation of the angle between the liner box and the mounting wall is a recitation of a change in the shape of the apparatus. Additionally, the prior art to Orozco teaches an angled liner box with respect to the mounting wall and providing a particular angle is merely a change in the shape of the apparatus. The configuration of the apparatus is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are allowed.
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5, the prior art to Mokrzycki in view of Orozco teaches the assembly of claim 1 but does not teach a non-permeable liner secured onto the basin lip and the mounting wall and batten strips disposed over the lip of the basin further securing the non-permeable liner between the basin line and the mounting wall nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is allowable as depending from claim 5.
Claim 9 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 5 as claim 9 recites the combined limitations of claim 1, 2 and 5.
The additional claims are allowable as depending from claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights