DETAILED ACTION
Election of 01 August 2025 Without Traverse
PNG
media_image1.png
398
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The following recitation appears in independent claim 27:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is unclear what minimal structure facilitates this specified conditional function. What facilitates the “circulation” (i.e., “circulates”). It is unclear how the conditional recitation “when” limits the structure of the filtration system being claimed. It is unclear how the system knows when the conditional “when” state exists. What triggers this conditional “when” circumstance? It is unclear what minimal structure is required to facilitate this conditional, functional, process limitation.
Independent claim 27 which claims both apparatus limitations and method steps of using (circulating step) are mixed, rendering the claim indefinite.
In claim 29, the recitation, “the regenerative filter” lacks clear positive antecedent basis.
In claim 31, it is unclear how the “drain receptacle” differs from “a drain pit”, For the purposes of the art rejection, these two “limitations” absent clarification, are seen to be one-in-the-same.
In claim 33, the recitation, “the liquid level sensor is configured to cause a source of pressurized water to clean accumulated particles from the filter when a liquid level in the drum filter is at or above a predetermined blockage level” appears. It is unclear what minimal structure this language intends. It is unclear how a “liquid level sensor” alone accomplishes this function, or what other structure, if any, is required to accomplish the “causing” of pressurized water to clean.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “flow sensor” as recited in claim 29, “the drain receptacle comprises a drain pit”, as recited in claim 31 “the liquid level sensor is configured to cause a source of pressurized water to clean accumulated particles from the filter when a liquid level in the drum filter is at or above a predetermined blockage level” as recited in claim 33, ALL must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 27, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over COFFIN.
The claim limitations are parenthetically mapped to the reference numerals of COFFIN below, or explanatory text when a reference numeral might not exist.
27. (Original) A filtration system for use with an indoor grow zone comprising:
a drain receptacle (1310) configured to collect water from the grow zone (1308);
a supply tank (1302) configured to hold a volume of water for supply to the grow zone;
a plurality of filter apparatuses (1314; “disc filters” are disclosed on page 7, column 1, at about line 48) fluidly coupled between the drain receptacle (1310) and the supply tank (1302); and
a recirculation line (see the line between 1302 and 1310) fluidly coupled to the supply tank (1302) and the drain receptacle (1310);
wherein water circulates through the recirculation line (see the unlabeled recirculation line between 1356 and 1310) from the supply tank through the plurality of filter apparatuses when water is not available from the drain receptacle (1310).
31. (Original) The filtration system of claim 27, wherein the drain receptacle comprises a drain pit configured to retain water from the grow zone after an irrigation cycle is performed.
34 (Original) The filtration system of claim 27, wherein the system is operable in a first mode of operation in which water flows from the drain receptacle through the plurality of filter apparatuses and into the supply tank, and in a second mode of operation in which water recirculates through the recirculation line from the supply tank through the plurality of filter apparatuses, the system maintaining a sufficient volume of filtered water for supply to the grow zone when water is not available from the drain receptacle.
Claim 27 is rejected in the 102/103 alternative. COFFIN is capable of functioning in the manner specified in the “wherein” clause, and therefore meets the limitations of the claim. Alternatively, should the “wherein” clause be found to constitute a structurally limiting limitation, it would have been obvious to circulate water through the recirculation line (see the unlabeled recirculation line between 1356 and 1310) from the supply tank through the plurality of filter apparatuses when water is not available from the drain receptacle (1310), since COFFIN discloses structure capable of performing the functional process limitation. Since the system of COFFIN is capable of operating in the manner recited in claim 34, COFFIN is seen to meet the limitations of claim 34.
Claims 28, 29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COFFIN as applied to claims 27 above, and further in view of HARDEN.
28. (Original) The filtration system of claim 27, wherein the plurality of filter apparatuses comprises a regenerative filter apparatus and an ozone apparatus (1352).
29. (Original) The filtration system of claim 27, wherein the regenerative filter apparatus comprises a filter media and a flow sensor (1316), the flow sensor configured to cause a decrease in pressure at the filter media when a flow falls below a flow threshold.
32. (Original) The filtration system of claim 27, further comprising a drum filter apparatus fluidly connected between the drain receptacle and the plurality of filter apparatuses.
33. (Original) The filtration system of claim 32, wherein the drum filter comprises a rotating filter and a liquid level sensor, the liquid level sensor is configured to cause a source of pressurized water to clean accumulated particles from the filter when a liquid level in the drum filter is at or above a predetermined blockage level.
Claim 28 specifies a “regenerative filter apparatus”.
Claim 29 specifies “the regenerative filter apparatus”.
Claim 32 specifies a “drum filter”.
Claim 33 specifies, “wherein the drum filter comprises a rotating filter and a liquid level sensor, the liquid level sensor is configured to cause a source of pressurized water to clean accumulated particles from the filter when a liquid level in the drum filter is at or above a predetermined blockage level”.
None of the limitations recited in claims 28, 29, 32 or 33 are clearly taught by COFFIN.
HARDEN in a filtration system teaches:
According to at least one aspect, the system may include a level sensor, such as level sensor 178a that is positioned in the inlet trough 130 of the housing 125 that houses the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115. The level sensor 178a may be configured to measure the level of wastewater 102 (influent water) in the inlet trough 130 of the housing 125. An approximate maximum water level (i.e., a predetermined level) for the influent is show in FIG. 7B. Wastewater is fed into the inlet trough 130 at a constant flow rate, which means that the water level in the inlet trough will increase as the solids build up on the filter surfaces of the drum filter 105 (i.e., the filter surface 112 becomes more clogged) and the disc filter 115. The level sensor 178a may take periodic measurements and send these measurements to the controller 176. Therefore, when the water level in the inlet trough 130 exceeds the predetermined water level (e.g., a water level such as that shown in FIG. 7B), the controller 176 may send one or more signals to the system that result in a halt to a filtration process and to start a cleaning process. For instance, the controller 176 may control a motor in the drive assembly 170 to rotate the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115 at a lower speed and control the sprayers in the backwash system 145 to spray cleaning fluid onto the filter surfaces of each of the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115 as described above.
In view of the teachings of HARDEN, it would have been obvious to incorporate a drum filter with a level sensor and regenerating sprayers in the system of COFFIN, in order to purify the water flowing to the supply tank, in order to filter debris therefrom.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COFFIN and HARDEN as applied to claims 28, 29, 32 and 33 above, and further in view of BLAKEMAN.
30. (Original) The filtration system of claim 28, wherein the ozone apparatus comprises an oxygen concentrator and an ozone generator.
The apparatus of the references as applied above fails to teach the ozone apparatus comprises an oxygen concentrator and an ozone generator.
BLAKEMAN discloses the use of an oxygen concentrator (130) to produce ozone in an oxygen generator (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the references as applied above by employing an oxygen concentrator (130) to produce ozone in an oxygen generator (120), in view of the teachings of BLAKEMAN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776