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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 09FEB2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections and specification and drawings objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17SEPT2025. Applicant's arguments filed 09FEB2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that MASON teaches a “fundamental spatial relationship” to arrange the filters above the magnetic bar assembly by pointing the claim 1 of MASON. This is not persuasive, because the claim just describes the device as having a magnetic bar in a lower section of a housing. The purpose of the magnetic assembly is to trap particles and provide easy cleaning when removed (par. [0024]). It does not support the conclusion of a “fundamental spatial relationship”. Furthermore, it is a simple matter to place the magnetic assembly inside a filter, which is known in the art.
The Applicant further argues that QUINTING does not teach the invention (the argument is confusing, because it switches from discussing the magnetic post to the coalescing media in the same paragraph). Both QUINTING and MASON teach a filter fluidly between the inlets and outlets.
The Applicant further argues that the combination does not teach the magnetic separation insert coupled to a bottom portion of the separation device and arranged in the coalescing media interior space in a top portion of the separation device. The argument is persuasive. Note new rejections below. As far a filtering efficiency, the obviousness of the combination comes from the filter and/or the combination of a filter and a magnetic assembly as is known in the art.
CLAIMS ENTERED
The Applicant is advised to use only black font color when making amendments in order to retain proper document quality.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 line(s) 6 sets forth the limitation “reverse angled edges configured to […] an outlet or a discharge nozzle of the separation device”, which is interpreted as requiring an outlet or a discharge nozzle of the separation device.
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.
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) 1-5,8,13,22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894).
Regarding claims 1,3, MASON teaches a multi-function hydraulic separator including a separation device including a tank wall (Fig. 1 #4) and having a top (Fig. 1 #6) with an inlet and outlet (e.g. Fig. 1 # 20,22) and also having a bottom portion (e.g. Fig. 3 #8) that combines with the top portion to form a separation chamber (Fig. 1 #10), comprising:
a coalescing media (e.g. Fig. 1 #70,170; par. [0031,0034]) arranged between the inlet and outlet of the top portion and including vertically assembled perforated sheets having surfaces with a multiplicity of openings (as shown in Fig. 1 #70,170); and
a magnetic separation insert (Fig. 1 #24) coupled to the bottom portion of the separation device, having a non-magnetic sleeve with a non-magnetic surface (Fig. 1 #73; par. [0029]; trapped particles are easily removed when the magnetic bar assembly is removed) that surrounds a removable magnet insert (Fig. 1 #77) configured to be removed from inside the non-magnetic sleeve to release the ferromagnetic or ferritic particles attracted and collected on the non-magnetic sleeve so that released ferromagnetic or ferritic particles can fall to the bottom portion of the separation chamber (par. [0029]).
MASON does not teach the vertically assembled perforated sheets are configured to form a coalescing media interior space in the separation chamber and the magnetic separation insert is arranged in the coalescing media interior space in the top portion.
However, BOSSINI teaches a filter for treating a fluid in a pipe (title, Figs.) having a tank wall (Figs. 1-2 #10,23) and having a top (Figs. 1-2 #10) with an inlet and outlet (e.g. Figs. 1-2 # 11,13) and also having a bottom portion (Figs. 1-2 #23) that combines with the top portion to form a separation chamber (Figs. 1-2 #10A), comprising:
a filter media (Figs. 1-2 #26) arranged between the inlet and outlet of the top portion and including perforated sheets having surfaces with a multiplicity of openings (“mesh”, par. [0057]) and configured to form an interior (annular) space in the separation chamber (par. [0058]); and
a removable magnetic separation insert (Figs. 1-2 #20; par. [0047-0053]) coupled to the bottom portion of the separation device and arranged in the filter media interior space in the top portion (Fig. 1) and having a non-magnetic sleeve (Fig. 2 #24; par. [0052]) with a non-magnetic surface that surrounds a removable magnet insert (Fig. 2 #22).
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that BOSSINI provides a filter system that covers a large portion the filter chamber and thus improving the filtering efficiency (Fig. 1, par. [0005,0016]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separation device of MASON with a magnetic separation insert arranged in a filter interior space as taught by BOSSINI in order to provide improved filter efficiency. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of fluid separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 2, MASON discloses the separation device comprises a bottom coupling member configured on the bottom portion of the separation device; and
the non-magnetic sleeve comprises a sleeve coupling member configured to detachably couple to the bottom coupling member for coupling the magnetic separation insert to the bottom portion of the separation device (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, MASON teaches the removable magnet insert comprises a handle having an insert coupling member (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, MASON teaches the removable magnet insert comprises
a rod (Fig. 1 #75; par. [0029]) connected to the handle; and
an alternating stack of magnets and spacers (Fig. 1 #79) configured to slide onto the rod and be retained by a bolt fastened to an end of the rod (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, MASON teaches the vertically assembled perforated sheets are made from stainless steel (par. [0034]).
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
916
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, MASON teaches the separation device includes a well assembly (Fig. 1 #8) at the bottom portion of the separation chamber.
Regarding claim 22, MASON teaches the separation device comprises a residential hydronic magnetic, sediment and air separation device (abstract) that includes:
a separator tank (Fig. 1) having a separator input (Fig. 2 #20), having the tank wall (Fig. 1 #4), and having a separator output (Fig. 2 #22).
Regarding claim 23, MASON teaches the separation device comprises a blow down valve (Fig. 1 #30) configured at the bottom portion of the separation chamber.
Regarding claim 24, MASON teaches the separation device comprises an air vent (Fig. 1A #21) configured at the top portion of the separation chamber.
Regarding claim 25, MASON teaches the multiplicity of openings formed in the surfaces of the vertically assembled perforated sheets are capable of coalescing the gasses and the other solids in the hydronic fluid (par. [0034]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and BRUHN (US 20220323968).
Regarding claim 6, MASON is silent as to the arrangement of the magnetic poles. However, BRUHN teaches a magnetic separator (title, Figs.) including:
a separation chamber (Fig. 1 #42); and,
a magnetic separation insert (Fig. 1 #20) coupled to the bottom portion of the separation device and comprising a rod (Fig. 4 #116); and
an alternating stack of magnets (Fig. 4 #124) and spacers (Fig. 4 #126) configured to slide onto the rod and be retained by a bolt fastened to an end of the rod (Fig. 1 #118);
wherein the alternating stack of magnets comprise opposite magnetic poles arranged so that like magnetic poles face each other and are separated by a spacer (par. [0022,0025]).
BRUHN teaches that this arrangement, it has been found, may produce magnetic fields of greater strength.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the magnets of MASON with alternating poles of BRUHN in order to produce magnetic fields of greater strength. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of magnetic separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and ELSEGOOD (US 20220323968).
Regarding claim 7, MASON is silent as to the magnetic insert material. However, ELSEGOOD teaches a magnetic fluid filter (title, Figs.) including:
a magnetic separation insert (Fig. 1 #100) comprising a rod (par. [0012]); and
an alternating stack of magnets (Fig. 1 #112) and spacers (Fig. 1 #114) retained by a bolt fastened to an end of the rod (Fig. 1 #106);
wherein the alternating stack of magnets comprise opposite magnetic poles arranged so that like magnetic poles face each other and are separated by a spacer (Fig. 1); and,
the non-magnetic insert is made of stainless steel (par. [0032]), which is a known suitable strong material.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the non-magnetic insert of MASON to be made of stainless steel as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of magnetic separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and QUINTING (US 3289841).
Regarding claim 10, MASON’s modified filter does not teach corrugated plates. However, QUINTING teaches a bidirectional filter (title, Figs.) having a tank wall and top (Fig. 1 #12) and bottom portions (Fig. 1 #46) that combine to form a separation chamber (Fig. 1 #132), comprising:
a filter media (Fig. 1 #52) including vertically assembled perforated sheets having surfaces with a multiplicity of openings (as shown; C2/L9-10), the vertically assembled perforated sheets configured to form an interior (annular) space in the separation chamber; and
a removable magnetic separation insert (Fig. 1 #70; C/L18-21) coupled to the bottom portion of the separation device and arranged in the filter media interior space; and,
corrugated plates having peaks, crests and surfaces between the peaks and crests (corrugated screen; C2/L9-10).
QUINTING teaches the corrugated filter element has an improved filter efficiency (C1/L11,24,33-34) and, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, as having a greater filtering surface area as is known in the art.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of MASON with a corrugated plate as taught by QUINTING in order to provide improved filter efficiency. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of fluid separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and WANG (US 20130192286).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894), QUINTING (US 3289841) and WANG (US 20130192286).
Regarding claims 9,11, MASON does not teach the vertically assembled perforated sheets have a vertical diamond shape.
However, the shape of the filter 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 of the claimed structure was significant. See MPEP 2144.04.IV(B).
This is further obvious in view of WANG, which teaches a filter having a diamond shape (see e.g. Fig. 1(a)) as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and HARRIS (US 20180236388).
Regarding claim 12, MASON teaches a minimal to no pressure drop (par. [0001]), but does not specify the amount of open space in the interior space compared to the volume of the separator chamber. However HARRIS teaches rectangular filters (title, Figs.) comprising pleated filter media (e.g. Fig. 2A #101) and a central void (Fig. 2A #105; par. [0050]). This construction allows for more area for fluid flow, which lowers the pressure drop (par. [0065,0068]), which leads to improved filter performance (par. [0066]).
HARRIS teaches open space/void volume is a results-effective variable that affects the filter structure and properties (e.g. pressure drop). Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed open space range because HARRIS teaches open space/void volume is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Claim(s) 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON (20220355230) in view of BOSSINI (US 20210276894) and TALIAFERRO (US 4784762).
Regarding claim 15, MASON does not teach a maintenance indicator. However, TALIAFERRO teaches a magnetic trap (title, Figs.) comprising a maintenance indicator capable of responding to a magnetic flux generated by a magnet (Fig. 1 #22) and provide maintenance indicator signaling containing information about maintenance being needed on the separation device, including where the maintenance indicator signaling includes audio and/or visual signaling (C1/L44-47,56-61,C3/L21-27).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of MASON to include a maintenance indicator for the purpose of easily providing maintenance as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of magnetic separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 16,20-21, TALIAFERRO teaches the maintenance indicator is capable of responding to a magnetic flux and provide a corresponding maintenance indicator signaling based on a threshold (C3/L19-31; C4/L12-39).
Regarding claims 17-18, TALIAFERRO teaches the maintenance indicator comprises a circuit having a magnetic sensor comprising a Hall Effect sensor (abstract; C3/L32-36).
Regarding claim 19, TALIAFERRO teaches the circuit comprises a light including e.g. where the light turns ON/OFF (see circuit of Fig. 3; C4/L12-39).
While TALIAFERRO is not explicit in the visual alarm, it is nonetheless either implied or obvious to turn the light on/off based on the threshold condition. In considering the disclosure of TALIAFERRO, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01).
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777