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 1-4, 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp herein known as (US 20070023344 A1), in view of Mustakangas et al. (WO 2022069789 A1) herein known as Mustakangas and further in view of Massey (US 6364122 B1) herein known as Massey.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.1, Kemp)
Regarding Claim 1, Kemp is directed to filter plate assemblies for use in a filter press and filter grids for use in such assemblies [0001].
Kemp discloses a filter grid receivable within a filtrate vat of a filter press, comprising: a plate -like grid body having a first side and an opposing second side, wherein the first side defines a generally planar first surface configured to support a filter element (Fig.1; Abstract, (A filter plate assembly for use in a filter press includes a frame made of two sealing frame members, each defining a rectangular aperture having a major and a minor dimension. A rectangular filter grid made of adjacent first and second sets of narrow bars fits in the frame.))
wherein the grid body further comprises a plurality of apertures extending between the first side and the second side, thereby providing fluid communication between the first side and the second side through the grid body ([0041], (The slurry flows into the open area formed by the rectangular aperture in each frame 50 from which it passes through the filter medium and into the space filled by the filter grid 20 which supports the filter medium.))
However, Kemp is silent to wherein the second side comprises a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom, wherein each of the plurality of apertures define an aperture area and an aperture circumference, such that a ratio of the aperture area in millimetres squared to the aperture circumference in millimetres is above 1.3, and wherein the plurality of apertures occupy at least 35% of a total area of the first side.
Mustakangas is directed to vertical filter presses, such as tower presses, and more particularly to a grid and vat for a filtrate vat assembly of such a filter. The present disclosure further concerns the vat assembly and the vertical filter press (Page1, Lines 4-6).
Mustakangas discloses wherein the second side comprises a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom (Page2, Lines 19-27, (The grid comprises a plate -like grid body having a first side and a second side. The first side defines a generally planar first surface for supporting a filter cloth, when in use. The second side defines a second surface comprising a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom. That is, the knobs are configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat. The first and second sides are arranged on opposing sides of the plate -like grid body. The body further comprises a plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface.)).
Massey is directed to liquid-solid separators, particularly portable separators for treatment of sludge in bulk. More specifically, the present invention provides an improved filtration system for extracting liquid from a sludge or slurry and separating the resulting liquids and solids for separate disposal or recovery (Col.1, Lines 6-12).
Massey discloses wherein each of the plurality of apertures defines an aperture area, such that the plurality of apertures occupy at least 35% of a total area of the first side (Col. 6, Lines 20-30, (The expanded metal suitable for tank T contains at least fifty percent pore space. The preferred embodiment uses expanded metal containing at least eighty-six percent pore space. (17) The filter media support structure 15 for tank T composed of perforated plates 18 contains forty percent of the surface area opening. The perforated plate metal sheet 18 is formed, using any suitable method, preferably solid sheets of metal that are punched or bored to create a plurality of drainage holes 18a therein, thus providing a suitable support structure for the filter media F that provides rigid support that can withstand the weight and force of the incoming sludge to be dewatered.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemp ‘s filter grid, as taught by Mustakangas , the second side comprises a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom, in order the knobs be configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat (See Mustakangas [Page2, Lines 19-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemp ‘s filter grid, as taught by Massey, wherein the plurality of apertures occupy at least 35% of a total area of the first side, in order to provide a suitable support structure for the filter media that provides rigid support that can withstand the weight and force of the incoming sludge to be dewatered (See Massey, [Col. 6, Lines 20-30]).
Kemp in view of Mustakangas and further in view of Massey do not explicitly teach such that
wherein each of the plurality of apertures define an aperture area and an aperture circumference, such that a ratio of the aperture area in millimetres squared to the aperture circumference in millimetres is above 1.3, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kemp’ ratio of the aperture area in millimetres squared to the aperture circumference in millimetres is above 1.3, because the a ratio of the aperture area in millimetres squared to the aperture circumference in millimetres represents result-effective variables affecting providing a suitable support structure for the filter media that provides rigid support that can withstand the weight and force of the incoming sludge to be dewatered (See Massey, [Col. 6, Lines 20-30]), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said variable.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp teaches the filter grid (1) according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the aperture area in millimetres squared to the aperture circumference in millimetres is above 1.3 which includes above 1.4.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp teaches filter grid according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of apertures occupy at least 36% of the total area of the first side (Massey, Col. 6, Lines 20-30, (The expanded metal suitable for tank T contains at least fifty percent pore space. The preferred embodiment uses expanded metal containing at least eighty-six percent pore space. (17) The filter media support structure 15 for tank T composed of perforated plates 18 contains forty percent of the surface area opening. The perforated plate metal sheet 18 is formed, using any suitable method, preferably solid sheets of metal that are punched or bored to create a plurality of drainage holes 18a therein, thus providing a suitable support structure for the filter media F that provides rigid support that can withstand the weight and force of the incoming sludge to be dewatered.))
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim1 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp does not explicitly teach the filter grid according to represents result-effective variable affecting providing a suitable support structure for the filter media that provides rigid support that can withstand the weight and force of the incoming sludge to be dewatered (See Massey, [Col. 6, Lines 20-30]) therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said variable.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp does not explicitly teach the filter grid according to claim1, wherein a minimum distance between adjacent apertures is between 2 - 6 mm, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a minimum distance between adjacent apertures between 2 - 6 mm, because minimum distance between adjacent apertures represents result-effective variable affecting desirable flow characteristics, such as flow velocities or pressure drops in addition to providing added support strength (Ekholm, Page 3, Lines 1-7) therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said variable.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Mustakangas discloses the filter grid according to claim1, wherein non-peripheral knobs of the plurality of protruding knobs are provided on the second side (Page 2, Lines 19-27, The grid comprises a plate -like grid body having a first side and second side. The first side defines a generally planar first surface for supporting a filter cloth, when in use. The second side defines a second surface comprising a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom. That is, the knobs are configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, so as to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat. The first and second sides are arranged on opposing sides of the plate -like grid body. The body further comprises a plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kemp ‘s filter grid wherein non-peripheral knobs of the plurality of protruding knobs are provided on the second side between three apertures immediately adjacent to each other, in order to the knobs be configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, so as to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat. and the plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface (See Mustakangas, [Page 2, Lines 19-27]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 as set forth above.
Mustakangas discloses the Knob side (Page 2, Lines 19-27, The grid comprises a plate -like grid body having a first side and second side. The first side defines a generally planar first surface for supporting a filter cloth, when in use. The second side defines a second surface comprising a plurality of protruding knobs spaced apart from each other for supporting the remaining grid on an associated filtrate vat at a distance therefrom. That is, the knobs are configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, so as to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat. The first and second sides are arranged on opposing sides of the plate -like grid body. The body further comprises a plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface.)
Ekholm discloses the filter grid according to claim 11 wherein such three apertures are circumferentially equally spaced apart from each other (traditional honeycomb matrix) (Figs. 2, 3 A and 3B; Page7, Lines 8- 17, (As seen in FIGS. 2, 3 A and 3B, the matrix support element 112 can be comprised of a connected array of “tubes” 116 being defined by apertures 118 and rigid tube walls 120 as to define a first end 122 and a second end 124 and a tube interior 126 with a tube flow path 128. In this embodiment, tubes 116 are formed such that the apertures 118 have a hexagonal shape so as to resemble a traditional honeycomb matrix.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kemp ‘s filter grid wherein the filter grid according to claim 11 wherein such three apertures are circumferentially equally spaced apart from each other about a knob surrounded by said three apertures, in order to the knobs be configured for supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, so as to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat. and the plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface (See Mustakangas, [Page 2, Lines 19-27]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp does not explicitly teach according to claim1, the filter grid protruding knobs have a circular cross-sectional profile, with a maximum diameter of between 3 - 7 mm, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter grid protruding knobs have a circular cross-sectional profile, with a maximum diameter of between 3 - 7 mm, because the diameter of protruding knobs cross-sectional profile represents result-effective variable affecting supporting the remaining grid at a distance from a bottom of the receptacle defined by the vat, so as to enable filtrate flow between the grid and the vat and the plurality of apertures providing fluid communication between the first surface and the second surface (See Mustakangas, [Page 2, Lines 19-27]) therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said variable.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Mustakangas discloses a filtrate vat assembly, comprising a vat body having: a filtrate side defining a receptacle, thereby forming a filtrate vat for receiving filtrate, and a plate side configured for being supported on a filter plate, wherein the filtrate vat assembly further comprises a filter grid according to claim 1 received within said filtrate vat (Abstract, (A grid (1) and a vat (4) for a vat assembly of a vertical filter press such as a tower press is disclosed); Page 1, Line 7-15, (In vertical filter presses multiple filter plates are superimposed, such that a filter chamber is delimited between adjacent filter plates. A filter medium, typically a filter cloth, is positioned between adjacent filter plates. Slurry is fed into the filter chamber above the cloth, and filtrate is received through the filter medium into a filtrate vat formed on the filter plate below. A grid is provided in the filtrate vat so as to support the filter cloth and to prevent it from bulging into the filtrate vat.); Page 4, Lines 19-23, (A vat surface is arranged on the grid side, the vat surface defining a bottom of a receptacle for receiving filtrate attainable from a filtration process of an associated vertical filter press, and for receiving an associated grid to be supported thereon)).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 as set forth above.
Kemp disclosed a filter plate assembly, comprising a filter plate wherein the filter plate assembly further comprises a filter grid according to claim 1 (Fig.1; Abstract, (A filter plate assembly for use in a filter press includes a frame made of two sealing frame members, each defining a rectangular aperture having a major and a minor dimension. A rectangular filter grid made of adjacent first and second sets of narrow bars fits in the frame.); ([0041], (The slurry flows into the open area formed by the rectangular aperture in each frame 50 from which it passes through the filter medium and into the space filled by the filter grid 20 which supports the filter medium.)).
Mustakangas discloses a filter plate assembly, comprising a filter plate having: a vat side with a filtrate vat arranged thereon, said filtrate vat being configured for receiving filtrate, and a chamber side forming at least a part of a filter chamber, wherein the filter plate assembly further comprises a filter grid according to claim 1 received within the filtrate vat. (Abstract, (A grid (1) and a vat (4) for a vat assembly of a vertical filter press such as a tower press is disclosed); Page 1, Line 7-15, (vertical filter presses multiple filter plates are superimposed, such that a filter chamber is delimited between adjacent filter plates. A filter medium, typically a filter cloth, is positioned between adjacent filter plates. Slurry is fed into the filter chamber above the cloth, and filtrate is received through the filter medium into a filtrate vat formed on the filter plate below. A grid is provided in the filtrate vat so as to support the filter cloth and to prevent it from bulging into the filtrate vat.); Page 4, Lines 19-23, (A vat surface is arranged on the grid side, the vat surface defining a bottom of a receptacle for receiving filtrate attainable from a filtration process of an associated vertical filter press, and for receiving an associated grid to be supported thereon)).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Kemp discloses a filter press, comprising: a plurality of filter plates, wherein at least a filter chamber the filter press further comprises a filter grid according to claim 1.
(Fig.1; Abstract, (A filter plate assembly for use in a filter press includes a frame made of two sealing frame members, each defining a rectangular aperture having a major and a minor dimension. A rectangular filter grid made of adjacent first and second sets of narrow bars fits in the frame.); ([0041], (The slurry flows into the open area formed by the rectangular aperture in each frame 50 from which it passes through the filter medium and into the space filled by the filter grid 20 which supports the filter medium.)).
Mustakangas discloses a filtrate vat for receiving filtrate, said filtrate vat being arranged on a side of the filter element opposite to the filter chamber, wherein the filter press further comprises a filter grid according to claim 1 received within the filtrate vat so as to support the filter element thereon. Abstract, (A grid (1) and a vat (4) for a vat assembly of a vertical filter press such as a tower press is disclosed); Page 1, Line 7-15, (vertical filter presses multiple filter plates are superimposed, such that a filter chamber is delimited between adjacent filter plates. A filter medium, typically a filter cloth, is positioned between adjacent filter plates. Slurry is fed into the filter chamber above the cloth, and filtrate is received through the filter medium into a filtrate vat formed on the filter plate below. A grid is provided in the filtrate vat so as to support the filter cloth and to prevent it from bulging into the filtrate vat.); Page 4, Lines 19-23, (A vat surface is arranged on the grid side, the vat surface defining a bottom of a receptacle for receiving filtrate attainable from a filtration process of an associated vertical filter press, and for receiving an associated grid to be supported thereon)).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp herein known as (US 20070023344 A1), in view of Mustakangas et al. (WO 2022069789 A1) herein known as Mustakangas, and further in view of Massey (US 6364122 B1) herein known as Massey, as applied to the claim 1 above and future in view of Ekholm (WO 2020206437 A1) herein known as Ekholm.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig.3A, Ekholm)
PNG
media_image3.png
791
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig.6A, Fig.6B, Ekholm)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
However modified Kemp is silent to the filtrate grid according to claim 1, wherein the each of the plurality of apertures are of a hexagonal shape.
Ekholm is directed to screen filters for liquid filtration. More particularly, the present disclosure is related to screen filters that include honeycomb or matrix-style support elements imparting structural strength and desired fluid handling or light diffusion characteristics to the screen filter as well as the related methods of fabrication (Page1, Lines 9-12).
Ekholm discloses the filtrate grid according to claim 1, wherein the each of the plurality of apertures are of a hexagonal shape. (FIGS. 6 and 6B; Page 9, Lines 4-7, (As seen in FIGS. 6 A and 6B, a filter screen 220 can comprise a filtering surface 130 formed with wires 110 attached to support rods 111. The filtering surface 130 is coupled to the matrix support element 112 at the first end 122. As shown, the rigid tube wall 120 can define apertures 118 having a hexagonal cross-section.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemp ‘s filter grid, as taught by Ekholm, wherein the filtrate grid according to claim 1, wherein the each of the plurality of apertures are of a hexagonal shape, provide desirable flow characteristics, such as flow velocities or pressure drops or to act as flow straighteners to reduce turbulence and direct water flow out the matrix support element (See Ekholm, [Page 3, Lines 1-7]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claims 1 and 5 as set forth above.
Ekholm discloses The filtrate grid according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged on the first surface in a honeycomb layout, comprising a plurality of first rows and a plurality of second rows, both extending in a longitudinal direction, wherein said first rows are arranged parallel, and in a mutually alternating manner with respect said second rows, wherein the apertures in said first rows are staggered, in the longitudinal direction of said first and second rows, with respect to the apertures in said second rows. (Figs. 2, 3 A and 3B; Page7, Lines 8- 17, (As seen in FIGS. 2, 3 A and 3B, the matrix support element 112 can be comprised of a connected array of “tubes” 116 being defined by apertures 118 and rigid tube walls 120 as to define a first end 122 and a second end 124 and a tube interior 126 with a tube flow path 128. In this embodiment, tubes 116 are formed such that the apertures 118 have a hexagonal shape so as to resemble a traditional honeycomb matrix.))
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claim 1 and 5 as set forth above.
Ekholm discloses the filter grid according to claim 5, wherein the aperture in the first rows overlap with those in the second rows in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the first and second rows (Figs. 2, 3 A and 3B; Page7, Lines 8- 17, (As seen in FIGS. 2, 3 A and 3B, the matrix support element 112 can be comprised of a connected array of “tubes” 116 being defined by apertures 118 and rigid tube walls 120 as to define a first end 122 and a second end 124 and a tube interior 126 with a tube flow path 128. In this embodiment, tubes 116 are formed such that the apertures 118 have a hexagonal shape so as to resemble a traditional honeycomb matrix.))
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claims 1,5 and 7 as set forth above.
Ekholm discloses the filter grid according to claim 7 wherein the apertures in the first rows do not overlap with those in the second rows in the longitudinal direction of the first and second rows (Figs. 2, 3 A and 3B; Page7, Lines 8- 17, (As seen in FIGS. 2, 3 A and 3B, the matrix support element 112 can be comprised of a connected array of “tubes” 116 being defined by apertures 118 and rigid tube walls 120 as to define a first end 122 and a second end 124 and a tube interior 126 with a tube flow path 128. In this embodiment, tubes 116 are formed such that the apertures 118 have a hexagonal shape so as to resemble a traditional honeycomb matrix.)).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claims 1 and 5 as set forth above.
Modified Kemp does not explicitly teach the filtrate grid according to claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of apertures have an inscribed diameter of at least 5 mm, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify wherein each of the plurality of apertures have an inscribed diameter of at least 5 mm because apertures have an inscribed diameter represents result-effective variable affecting desirable flow characteristics, such as flow velocities or pressure drops in addition to providing added support strength (Ekholm ,Page 3, Lines 1-7) therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said variable.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp herein known as (US 20070023344 A1), in view of Mustakangas et al. (WO 2022069789 A1) herein known as Mustakangas, and further in view of Massey (US 6364122 B1) herein known as Massey, as applied to the claim above, in view of Elkins (US 6690758 B1).
PNG
media_image4.png
618
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig.4 Elkins)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kemp teaches all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 as set forth above.
However modified Kemp is silent to the filter grid according to claim 11, wherein projections of non-peripheral knobs on the second side coincide with those of apertures adjacent to such non-peripheral knobs.
Elkins is directed to a filter plate resting on a lower tie plate grid for screening debris from the flow of coolant into the fuel bundle (Page 1, Lines 9-13).
Elkins discloses the filter grid according to claim 11, wherein projections of non-peripheral knobs on the second side coincide with those of apertures adjacent to such non-peripheral knobs. (Fig. 4; Col.4, Lines 45-60, (Consequently, the flow openings 42 between the bosses and webs lie in direct alignment with the apertures 50. Additionally, because the upper edges of the webs are recessed below the upper edges of the bosses and hence the underside of the filter plate 44, the flow area through the filter plate includes each aperture 50 except those overlying the edges 40 of the bosses. The edges 38 of the webs 36 do not block the vertically registering apertures.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemp ‘s filter grid, as taught by Elkins, wherein projections of non-peripheral knobs on the second side coincide with those of apertures adjacent to such non-peripheral knobs
in order not to block the vertically registering apertures (See Elkins, [ Fig. 4; Col.4, Lines 45-60]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights