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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueyama et al (US PGPub 2012/0312757 A1), or over Ueyama et al in view of Aoki et al (US 5,423,977 A) and/or Xu et al (CN 105088671 A).
With respect to claims 1, 5, and 6, Ueyama teaches a filtering apparatus, associated treatment system, and filtering method which employs a cylindrical screen filter made of a nonwoven fabric (1) [Abs, 0014, Fig. 1B], a treated water nozzle including a nozzle port through which water to be treated flows (2), (21) [0060-0061, Figs. 1A-B, Fig. 2] along with a casing (3) in which the filter is positioned, a filtered water flow channel with an inlet inside the casing (7), (41) for collecting filtered water, and a rotation mechanism that rotates the filter (101), (102) such as a motor driven system [0063, Fig. 3] or a nozzle/angle driven system; and methods of using such features i.e. feeding seawater through the treated water nozzle, spraying the filter, collecting filtered water, and rotating the filter in use.
Ueyama does not explicitly teach that the distance between the centerline of the nozzle port along the direction of outflow and the central axis of the filter is shorter than a radius of the filter i.e. that the nozzle is angled inward relative to a tangent of the filter cylinder. However, Ueyama does teach that the filter preferably has projections and recesses (e.g. pleats or the like in embodiments) which receive the flow of water from the angled nozzle i.e. to drive or at least assist filter rotation [0023]; as such, at minimum it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the nozzle such that flow is able to catch the projections and recesses, and therefore to select an angle which is at least slightly inward from a tangent of the cylinder. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally or alternatively, Aoki teaches a continuous filtration device with a rotationally driven filter and a spray nozzle for keeping the filter surface clean [Abs] by spraying at an acute angle (relative to the tangent of the surface) [Fig. 1] and teaches that, when such an angle is in a preferably range of 30-50 degrees, materials caught on the surface of the filter can be easily and reliably dislodged to flow away without redepositing [Col. 4 lines 40-54]. See also Xu, which teaches a filter cleaning device in which nozzles are provided to spray a rotatable filter barrel [Abs] e.g. a range of 0-10 degrees to clean and assist rotation [0018-0019, 0049], as a balance between imparted rotational effect and cleaning efficiency [0021]. As such, even if the teachings of Ueyama are not considered sufficient alone to render the claimed angle obvious, in view of Aoki and/or Xu the selection of an angle which is at least slightly inward relative to a tangent would have been obvious to improve the cleaning effect of the spraying.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, as above selection of an appropriate angle would have been an obvious optimization as Ueyama teaches providing an angled flow to feed the filter and to drive or assist rotation, and teaches the desired geometric relationship regarding the surface of the filter being capable of receiving flow from the nozzle; further, as in Aoki, ranges of e.g. 30-50 degrees may be considered preferable for cleaning effect, and as in Xu a range of 0-10 degrees may give a good balance of rotational driving and cleaning effect; these ranges overlap the claimed range, rendering it obvious.
With respect to claim 3, as above optimization in view of the guidance of Ueyama would have been obvious or, alternatively, the claimed range would have been obvious at least in view of Xu which teaches an overlapping range.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueyama et al (or over Ueyama et al in view of Aoki et al and/or Xu et al) in view of Knobloch et al (US PGPub 2019/0366245 A1).
Ueyama teaches that the upper and lower surfaces of the filter are sealed in a watertight manner, and that the rotatable mounting requires a similar watertight structure, employing a known structure which is not particularly limited [0060]. Ueyama is silent to the details required by the claim i.e. shafts, fixing structures, and the like.
However, Knobloch teaches a rotatable support structure for a drum-style filter [Abs] in which a functional filter and/or filter medium (120), (130) is supported on an inner support jacket (110) [0040-0042] as a load bearing structure of a rotating drum (cylindrical filter support including surface in contact with the screen) – although the provision of holes is not explicitly disclosed, such feature would have been obvious at least when adopting the structure to the filter system of Ueyama because Ueyama requires filtered fluid to reach the interior where the collection flow path begins, as discussed above. The structure of Knobloch further includes a strut (12) extending through the interior along the axis of the drum, as a rotating drive shaft [0031], as well as fixing structures on both ends of the drum in the form of e.g. clamp rings and associated engaging structures [0034], where the rotation mechanism i.e. the strut/drive shaft includes a protruding portion in a corresponding clamp ring for which the fixing members include suitable recesses to engage; and sealing devices (150) are provided on either end [0047]. Discharge channel openings are further provided on a suitable end of the device [0045] (through hole for passage of the filtered water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ueyama to feature structures as in Knobloch because Ueyama teaches that the structure is not limited and may use known, suitable structures, and Knobloch teaches structures suitable for sealed support of cylindrical, rotating filters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights