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 33-35, 38, and 48-49 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 33 recites the limitation "the water collection surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites “a baffle between the top of the main tank and the water collection chamber.” However, claim 30 states that the main tank comprises a water collection chamber. It is unclear how one element can be separated from itself.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the one or more water collection tanks." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 30-34, 36-39, 41, 43-44, and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batton et al. (US 2015/0150877 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287).
Regarding claim 30, Batton teaches an apparatus suitable for treating waste water to remove scum contaminants such as fat, oil, and grease, said apparatus comprising: a main tank (12), said main tank comprising: an inlet (22) for receiving the waste water from a waste water source; and a water collection chamber (volume in the main tank), for collecting the waste water from the inlet; a drain tap (27) configured to engage with the body of the main tank and configured to drain scum contaminants from the main tank (Fig.1-6 and [0023]-[0044]).
Batton fails to teach that the main tank is thermally insulated. Walker teaches a similar apparatus suitable for treating waste water to remove scum contaminants such as fat, oil, and grease, said apparatus comprising: a main tank (10), said main tank comprising: an inlet (14 32) for receiving the waste water from a waste water source; and a water collection chamber (volume in main tank), for collecting the waste water from the inlet; a means to drain the tank of scum contaminants; wherein the main tank is thermally insulated (48) in order to ensure the grease in the tank is in a liquid state (Fig. 1 and C2/L26-C5/L8). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide thermal insulation around the main tank in order to control and maintain the temperature such that the grease is in a liquid state.
Regarding claim 31, Batton teaches a grease removal unit (27 28 29) and a waste collection tank (14) removably coupled to the main tank (Fig.1-6 and [0023]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 32, Batton teaches that the grease removal unit comprises a valve (28).
Regarding claims 33-34, Batton teaches the valve can be open and closed and would be capable of providing the functions claimed depending on how the valve is operated during use.
Regarding claim 36, Batton teaches an inlet chamber with an angled surface (30) capable of providing the flow patterns claimed during use (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 37, Batton teaches an outlet (24).
Regarding claim 38, if the water collection chamber is the portion of the tank below the grease removal unit as shown in Fig. 1-2, it meets on the relative placement limitations claimed.
Regarding claim 39, as discusses above, it is unclear the placement of the baffle claimed. However, Batton teaches a baffle (26) positioned in the main tank/water collection chamber.
Regarding claim 41, Batton teaches a knob/handle (56) engaging the waste collection tank and main tank (Fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 43, Batton teaches a light sight glass that would be considered an indicator as claimed ([0039]).
Regarding claim 44, Batton teaches a lid (15) that closes the main tank and Fig. 4 appears to show a seal/gasket. Further, the tank is never taught to be pressurized so some sort of open to atmosphere would have been considered. As such means are not explicitly taught, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a seal as claimed in order to prevent liquid leakage while still allowing the treatment process to occur absent any pressure changes.
Regarding claim 46, Batton teaches that the design allows for interchangeable flow and the interior shows the symmetry requirement as claimed in Fig. 4 ([0034]).
Regarding claim 47, Batton teaches the symmetry claimed and the valve (28) controls flow in the system but fails to teach valves on both the inlet and outlet. Walker teaches that it is known to provide valves in the inlet and outlet system (30 49) in order to control flows within the system. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide valves in the inlet and outlet as claimed in order to control the flows within the system as desired.
Regarding claim 48, Batton teaches a base (16) as claimed.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batton et al. (US 2015/0150877 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hirsch et al. (US 2015/0353383).
Regarding claim 42, Batton teaches that the handle/knob is used to separate the waste collection tank from the main tank but fails to teach the handle/knob including a bayonet connection as claimed. Hirsch teaches that in connecting various parts that are fluidly connected to one another, a bayonet connection allows for secure connection, proper placement, and a fluid tight connection ([0027]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a bayonet connection as claimed in order to ensure secure connection, proper placement, and a fluid tight connection between the various parts.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batton et al. (US 2015/0150877 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Adachi (US 3,847,814).
Regarding claim 45, Batton teaches a lid with no hinge but fails to teach the lid is secured via lugs as claimed. Adachi teaches that lugs are well known means for securing lids/covers to chambers in order to provide secure placement and alignment (C2/L50-65). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the lid with lugs as claimed in order to provide secure placement and alignment.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batton et al. (US 2015/0150877 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Smiddy et al. (US 2014/0021137).
Regarding claim 49, Batton fails to teach wheels to aid transport. Smiddy teaches that it is known to provide wheels to liquid treatment systems in order to allow for mobility and movement ([0041]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide wheels to allow for the apparatus to be easily moved.
Claim(s) 30-38, 40, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen et al. (US 2005/0211620 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287).
Regarding claim 30, Owen teaches an apparatus suitable for treating waste water to remove scum contaminants such as fat, oil, and grease, said apparatus comprising: a main tank (14), said main tank comprising: an inlet (12) for receiving the waste water from a waste water source; and a water collection chamber (volume in the main tank), for collecting the waste water from the inlet; a drain tap (34) configured to engage with the body of the main tank and configured to drain scum contaminants from the main tank (Fig. 7a-8 and [0052]-[0080]).
Owen fails to teach that the main tank is thermally insulated. Walker teaches a similar apparatus suitable for treating waste water to remove scum contaminants such as fat, oil, and grease, said apparatus comprising: a main tank (10), said main tank comprising: an inlet (14 32) for receiving the waste water from a waste water source; and a water collection chamber (volume in main tank), for collecting the waste water from the inlet; a means to drain the tank of scum contaminants; wherein the main tank is thermally insulated (48) in order to ensure the grease in the tank is in a liquid state (Fig. 1 and C2/L26-C5/L8). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide thermal insulation around the main tank in order to control and maintain the temperature such that the grease is in a liquid state.
Regarding claim 31, Owen teaches a grease removal unit (34) and a waste collection tank (148) removably coupled to the main tank (Fig. 7a).
Regarding claim 32, Owen teaches that the grease removal unit comprises a valve (34).
Regarding claims 33-34, Owen teaches the valve can be open and closed and would be capable of providing the functions claimed depending on how the valve is operated during use.
Regarding claim 35, Owen teaches that the grease removal unit has a an angled surface as claimed (Fig. 7a).
Regarding claim 36, Owen teaches an inlet chamber with an angled surface (64) capable of providing the flow patterns claimed during use (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 37, Owen teaches an outlet (20 168).
Regarding claim 38, Owen teaches the grease removal unit is located above the water collection chamber (Figs. 7a and 8).
Regarding claim 40, Owen teaches a waste food collecting unit/basket (60) (Fig. 8). It is noted that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the basket anywhere in the system, such as directly before the inlet, as it is merely an obvious rearrangement of parts where the apparatus would not function differently.
Regarding claim 44, Owen teaches a lid (15) that closes the main tank and a top seal for the lid (abstract). Further, the tank is never taught to be pressurized so some sort of open to atmosphere would have been considered. As such means are not explicitly taught, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a seal as claimed in order to prevent liquid leakage while still allowing the treatment process to occur absent any pressure changes.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen et al. (US 2005/0211620 in IDS) in view of Walker et al. (US 4,145,287) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Adachi (US 3,847,814).
Regarding claim 45, Owen teaches a lid with no hinge but fails to teach the lid is secured via lugs as claimed. Adachi teaches that lugs are well known means for securing lids/covers to chambers in order to provide secure placement and alignment (C2/L50-65). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the lid with lugs as claimed in order to provide secure placement and alignment.
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