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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office Action does not explain how Heinrich destroys unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because this office Action shows via rejection of Claim 1 that there is no contribution over the art, which in turn satisfies the showing of a lack of unity of invention. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-3, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HEINRICH (US 4,107,042).
Re Claim 1, HEINRICH teaches a wash rack for cleaning filter plates, comprising: a filter plate front face spray assembly (left of Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of fixed front spray nozzles 28 along a first axis,
Re Claim 2, the right part of Fig. 3 reads on the rear face spray assembly.
Re Claim 3, the spray nozzle outlets appear to be directly facing each other. See Fig. 3.
Re Claim 8, the spray assemblies are shown to be mounded via 24. Re Claim 9, part of the frame includes pipes 26 and 27.
Re Claim 11, the frame includes piping connecting the front and rear fluid pipes, for example at the bottom left of Fig. 3.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WATZKE (DE 9116837, cited by Applicants).
Re Claim 1, WATZKE teaches a wash rack for cleaning filter plates, comprising: a filter plate front face spray assembly (top of Fig. 6) comprising a plurality of fixed front spray nozzles 16 along a first axis,
Re Claim 2, the bottom part of Fig. 6 reads on the rear face spray assembly.
Re Claim 3, the spray nozzle outlets appear to be directly facing each other. See Fig. 6.
Re Claim 8, the spray assemblies are shown to be mounded via L-shaped brackets. See Figs. 6-7. Re Claim 9, part of the frame includes pipes such as 14 and where 20 is.
Re Claim 11, the frame includes piping connecting the front and rear fluid pipes, for example to the left of 19.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH et al. (US 4,107,042).
HEINRICH et al. is relied upon as applied to the claims above.
Claims 4-7 are further directed towards the nozzle arrangement. These are rejected as unpatentable because rearrangement of parts has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)) as has provision of adjustability (MPEP 2144 (V-D)) and in dong so the nozzles would spray at different angles and in a known way without any unexpected results. Claim 10 is rejected as unpatentable because it is very well known and obvious to provide 90 degree elbows for fluid conveying and in doing so the spray of HEINRICH et al. would still spray the filter without any unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
Claims 12-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights