DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to applicant’s response filed on June 2, 2026, which has been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheets (see explanation below).
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-25 (of which claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16 and 20-23 have been amended) and new reissue claims 26 and 27 are subject to examination.
Proposed Replacement Drawings
The proposed replacement drawing sheets filed on June 2, 2026 have been disapproved by the examiner and has not been entered because:
In amended Fig. 3, the illustrations of the elements 84 and/or 86 does not match the illustration of these elements in original Fig. 3. Thus, amended Fig. 3 is inaccurate and/or adds new matter.
In amended Fig. 3, the illustration of the air spring (labeled in Fig. 2 by reference number 120) does not match the illustration of this element in original Fig. 3. Thus, amended Fig. 3 is inaccurate and/or adds new matter.
In amended Fig. 4, the lead line for reference number 62 is not directed to a side of one of the segments 58. See col. 4, ll. 48-51. Thus, amended Fig. 4 is inaccurate.
In amended Fig. 6, the arched arrow labeled by reference number 64 does not represent an angle between two sides 60, 62 of one of the segments 58. See col. 4, ll. 48-54. Thus, amended Fig. 6 is inaccurate and/or adds new matter.
Objections to Amendments – Formalities
The amendments to the specification filed on June 2, 2026 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d) and (g) because:
The single rewritten paragraph located at col. 4, line 44 to col. 5, line 2 is inaccurately identified as being located “at col. 4 lines 44-67 and col. 5 lines 1-2”.
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12 is inaccurately identified as being located “at col. 3 lines 7-12”.
The rewritten paragraphs are presented out of order. That is, the rewritten paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12 should appear first, not last, in the amendments to the specification.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(a)-(g) in response to this Office action.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,559,757 B2, which issued from Application No. 16/807,083. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 16/807,083 as filed on March 2, 2020. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during either the examination of the instant reissue application or the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 16/807,083 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
New Matter Added during Earlier-Concluded Examination
The amendments filed in Application No. 16/807,083 failed to comply with 35 USC 132(a) because they improperly introduced new matter for the following reasons:
Claim 1 was amended to recite “whereby the access port and the segments facilitate reducing a dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus” (see ll. 13-14 of claim 1). The original disclosure states that the prior art’s use of a removable lid adds space requirements to the filter device. However, the original disclosure makes no mention of applicant’s invention facilitating a reduced dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus.
New claim 26 (later renumbered as patent claim 15) was added, with this new claim reciting “the access port has a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter media tubes when the filter media tubes extend from said bores”. Amended claim 15 now recites “the access port has a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter media tubes…extending from said bores.” The original disclosure does not describe the access ports 34 as having any “central axis” and, thus, does not provide support for the access ports 34 having a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter media tubes.
New claim 27 (later renumbered as patent claim 18) was added, with this new claim reciting “the diffuser plate is solid throughout its entirety” (see ll. 2-3 of claim 18). Neither the specification nor the drawings establish that the diffuser plate is solid throughout its entirety.
New claim 36 (later renumbered as patent claim 21) was added, with this new claim reciting “wherein the diffuser plate is solid throughout its entirety”. Amended claim 21 recites “both of the diffuser plates are…solid throughout…their entireties.” See the explanation above with respect to patent claim 18.
New claim 29 (later renumbered as patent claim 22) was added, with this new claim reciting “the access port having a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter media tubes when the filter media tubes extend from the bores”. Amended claim 22 now recites “the access port having a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter media tubes…extending from the bores” (ll. 12-13). See the explanation above with respect to patent claim 15.
New claim 29 (later renumbered as patent claim 22) was added, with this new claim reciting “whereby the access port and the segments facilitate reducing a dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus” (see ll. 18-19 of claim 22). See the explanation above with respect to patent claim 1.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter (added during the earlier-concluded examination) in response to this Office action.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The amendment filed in this application on June 2, 2026 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because (i) the claim amendments add new matter for the reasons given above, and (ii) the amendments to the specification improperly introduce new matter for the reasons given below.
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12 recites “In some embodiments, the at least one access port may be positioned offset from a center of a top of the casing” (3rd to 4th lines). Due to the use of “In some embodiments”, “at least one” and “may be”, this new sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that (i) this sentence be omitted from the paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12, and (ii) the paragraph located at col. 3, lines 38-49 be amended to recite “The access port 34 is positioned offset from a center of the top end 24 of the casing 22.” as a new 3rd sentence of the paragraph.
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12 recites “In some embodiments, the tube sheet assembly, when installed, is disposed between the access port and the inlet of the casing” (5th to 6th lines). Due to the use of “In some embodiments”, this new sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that (i) this sentence be omitted from the paragraph located at col. 2, lines 7-12, and (ii) the paragraph located at col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, l. 2 be amended to recite “The tube sheet assembly 50, when installed, is disposed between the access port 34 and the inlet 30 of the casing 22.” as a new 3rd sentence of the paragraph.
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 4, line 44 to col. 5, line 2 recites “It is contemplated that each of the segments may be sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port into the interior cavity of the casing” (2nd to 3rd lines). Due to the use of “It is contemplated that” and “may be”, this new sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that this sentence be changed to “Each of the segments 58 is sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port 34 into the interior cavity 32 of the casing 22.”
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 5, lines 3-37 recites “As illustrated, the restrictor plates may have outlines extending between first and second edges 72 and 74 corresponding to the angular width or perimeter of the segments, and in some embodiments the restrictor plates may have a perimeter shape that is smaller than a perimeter shape of the tube sheet assembly” (8th to 11th lines). The original disclosure fails to provide support for the restrictor plates having outlines extending between the first and second edges 72, 74 corresponding to the “perimeter” of the segments. Further, due to the use of “in some embodiments” and “may have”, this amended sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that this sentence be changed to “As illustrated, the restrictor plates may have outlines extending between first and second edges 72 and 74 corresponding to the angular width of the segments, and the restrictor plates 70 have a perimeter shape that is smaller than a perimeter shape of the tube sheet assembly 50.”
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 5, lines 3-37 recites “It is further contemplated that the restrictor plates may have a perimeter that corresponds to a respective retaining plate segment forming the tube sheet assembly” (11th to 12th lines). Due to the use of “It is further contemplated that” and “may have”, this new sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that this sentence be changed to “The restrictor plates 70 have a perimeter that corresponds to a respective retaining plate segment 58 forming the tube sheet assembly 50.”
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 5, lines 3-37 recites “The restrictor plates 70 may also be sized and dimensioned to facilitate installation and removal of the plates through the access port into the interior cavity of the casing” (15th to 16th lines). Due to the use of “may also be”, this new sentence allows for other possible configurations that are not supported by the original disclosure. The examiner suggests that this sentence be changed to “The restrictor plates 70 are also sized and dimensioned to facilitate installation and removal of the plates through the access port 34 into the interior cavity 32 of the casing 22.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter (added to this application) in response to this Office action.
Establishing Ownership Interest
The Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) (Form PTO/AIA /96) filed on June 2, 2026 is defective because it does not properly identify the chain of title from the inventor to the current assignee. According to USPTO assignment records, the chain of title includes:
An assignment from the inventor to Aquify Systems Corp. of Kelowna, Canada recorded at Reel 54186/Frame 0222.
An assignment from Aquify Systems Corp. to Marclara, LLC recorded at Reel 54186/Frame 0294.
An assignment from Marclara, LLC to Aquify System Corp. of Dallas, TX recorded at Reel 63620/Frame 0435.
An assignment from Marclara, LLC to Aquify Systems Corp. of Dallas, TX recorded at Reel 73133/Frame 0258.
A proper statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) is required in reply to this Office action.
Consent of Assignee
The corrected written consent of the assignee (Form PTO/AIA /53) filed on June 2, 2026 is acceptable.
Application Data Sheet
The corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on June 2, 2026 is acceptable.
Filing Receipt
As explained in section II of MPEP 601.05(a), a corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt unless accompanied by a request to take some other action, such as a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c), or a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48. Accordingly, the applicant should file a request for a corrected filing receipt in order to have corrected Applicant Information entered by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The corrected reissue declaration filed on January 12, 2026 is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
GROUND 2: Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims such that the claimed invention is capable of achieving the desired results.
Claim 4 recites “wherein each of the restrictor plates is configured to be installed in the tube sheet assembly in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes each of the restrictor plates to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.” Claim 24 recites “wherein the restrictor plate is configured to be installed in the tube sheet assembly in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes the restrictor plate to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.”
The specification’s summary of the invention broadly states that the at least one restrictor plate may comprise one of a plurality of configurations wherein each configuration obstructs a unique number of bores in the tube sheet (see col. 2, ll. 15-18). However, the specification’s detailed description fails to explain (i) how the restrictor plates are structured so as to be capable of being installed in a plurality of installation configurations in which they sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores, (ii) how the restrictor plates are mounted to the tube sheet assembly so as to be capable of being installed in a plurality of installation configurations in which they sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores, or (iii) any examples/embodiments in which the restrictor plates are installed in a plurality of installation configurations in which they sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores. Fig. 6 shows one example/embodiment of the manner in which the restrictor plates are mounted to the tube sheet assembly, but neither the specification nor the drawings disclose any alternative example/embodiment in which the restrictor plates have another installation configuration obstructing some other unique number of bores. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-27 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.
In claim 1, the term “the cross-sectional area of said interior cavity” (ll. 3-4) lacks proper antecedent basis. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “a cross-sectional area of said interior cavity”.
In claim 1, the recitation “by reducing or adding utilized tubes” (l. 25) is indefinite because it is unclear how the “utilized tubes” (l. 25) relate to the “filter media tubes” (l. 15). Are the tubes of line 25 filter media tubes or different tubes? The examiner suggests that “by reducing or adding utilized tubes” be changed to “by reducing or adding more of the filter media tubes”.
As explained in GROUND 3, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 4 and 24 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 4 and 24 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom.
In claim 22, the term “the cross-sectional area of the interior cavity” (l. 14) lacks proper antecedent basis. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “a cross-sectional area of the interior cavity”.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Ben-Horin et al.”
US Publication No. 2013/0270171 A1
“Beyer et al.”
US Patent No. 2,709,525
“Hubbard”
US Patent No. 3,416,669
“Nehlen, III ‘205”
US Patent No. 9,302,205 B1
“Nehlen, III ‘458”
US Patent No. 10,406,458 B1
“Sekiya et al.”
US Publication No. 2007/0193945 A1
“Soriente et al.”
US Patent No. 3,279,608
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hubbard in view of Beyer et al.
With respect to claim 22, Hubbard discloses an apparatus for filtering a fluid, comprising:
A casing 10 defining an interior cavity (see Fig. 1), a fluid inlet 14 or 60 configured to direct the fluid into the interior cavity, and a fluid outlet 59 configured to direct the fluid out of the interior cavity. See Figs. 1-2 and 4; col. 3, ll. 45-46 and 52-58; col. 5, ll. 31-36.
A tube sheet assembly including a tube sheet plate 15 spanning the interior cavity, the tube sheet assembly having a plurality of retaining plate segments 74 that are separable from the tube sheet plate 15, the segments 74 defining plural retaining plates. See Figs. 1-3 and 10-11; col. 3, ll. 59-64.
A plurality of filter media tubes 16 suspended from the tube sheet plate 15 and secured to the tube sheet plate 15 by the retaining plate segments 74. See Figs. 1-3 and 10-11; col. 3, ll. 59-64; col. 6, ll. 8-25.
Figs. 2 and 10 of Hubbard show that each one of the segments 74 defines a plurality of bores therethrough (some of the bores receiving anchoring bolts 23 and the rest of the bores aligned with the filter tubes 16), with each filter tube 16 extending from a respective one of the bores.
The top of Hubbard’s casing is defined by a removable top (cover) 17, and the entirety of the casing top (i.e., the cover 17) can be lifted off for inspection of the filter tubes 16. See Figs. 1-2; col. 3, ll. 71-75; col. 4, ll. 28-33. After the cover 17 is removed, the individual retaining plate segments 74 can be removed and lifted away using handles 75 for inspection of the filter tubes 16 located thereunder. See Figs. 2 and 10; col. 6, ll. 21-25.
Hubbard fails to teach an access port that is offset from the center of the removable top (cover) 17 of the casing 10, the access port having a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter tubes 16 within the casing 10, the access port having a smaller cross-sectional area than the interior cavity of the casing 10, each one of the retaining plate segments 74 being sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port into the interior cavity and removed through the access port from the interior cavity, the access port being configured to provide access to the segments 74 while the segments are installed in the interior cavity, whereby the access port and the segments 74 facilitate reducing a dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus.
Beyer et al. teaches a filter apparatus comprising an access port (covered by a cover 19) that is offset from a center of a removable top (cover) 2 of a casing 1, the access port located in a sloping wall of the removable top 2 such that the access port has a central axis that is non-parallel to filter tubes 6 within the casing 1, the access port having a smaller cross-sectional area than an interior cavity of the casing 1, the filter tubes 6 being suspended from a tube sheet plate 12 and being retained by retaining plate segments 27 (Figs. 2-3 and 5) and 30 (Fig. 5) or retaining plate segments 32 (Fig. 6) that are sized and dimensioned such that they can be installed through the access port into the interior cavity and removed through the access port from the interior cavity, the access port being configured to provide access to the retaining plates 27 and 30 or 32 while the retaining plates are installed in the interior cavity, whereby the access port and the retaining plates 27 and 30 or 32 facilitate reducing a dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus. See Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 2, l. 66 to col. 3, l. 5; col. 3, ll. 24-29; col. 3, ll. 59-71; col. 4, ll. 12-43.
Beyer et al. teaches that the tube sheet plate 12 is rotatable in order to selectively align subsets of the filter tubes 6 with the access port (below the cover 19). See Fig. 2; col. 1, ll. 66-72; col. 2, ll. 11-17; col. 3, ll. 6-35 and 67-74. Beyer et al. explains that such a construction (the rotatable tube sheet plate 12 used together with the access port) is desirable because it allows for inspection and removal of the filter tubes 6 without requiring removal of the tube sheet plate 12 and without requiring removal of the entire removable top 2 of the casing 1 (as in Hubbard). See col. 1, ll. 55-72; col. 2, ll. 1-4 and 11-17; col. 3, ll. 24-35 and 67-74.
From these teachings of Beyer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hubbard by providing an access port that is offset from the center of the removable top (cover) 17 of the casing 10, the access port having a central axis that is non-parallel to the filter tubes 16 within the casing 10, the access port having a smaller cross-sectional area than the interior cavity of the casing 10, each one of the retaining plate segments 74 being sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port into the interior cavity and removed through the access port from the interior cavity, the access port being configured to provide access to the segments 74 while the segments are installed in the interior cavity, whereby the access port and the segments 74 facilitate reducing a dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus. As taught by Beyer et al., the skilled artisan would have been led to modify Hubbard in this manner because it allows for inspection and removal of Hubbard’s filter tubes 16 without requiring removal of the tube sheet plate 15 and without requiring removal of the entire removable top 17 of the casing 10.
With respect to claim 27, Hubbard’s segments 74 are coplanar with each other. See Figs. 2 and 10. The segments 74 define a respective retaining plate, as broadly claimed, at least when the segments 74 are mounted in common to the tube sheet plate 15.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ben-Horin et al. and Sekiya et al. establish that circular access ports were well-known in the art. In Ben-Horin et al., a casing 30 has circular access ports 46 that provide for easy servicing of filter units 60 mounted on a rotatable support pipe 38. See Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0064-0067, 0070. In Sekiya et al., a casing 2 has a manhole 7a (which is conventionally circular) that allows for replacement of filters 6 suspended from a tube sheet plate 3. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0047, 0051.
Nehlen, III ‘205 teaches a filter apparatus comprising a tube sheet assembly 32 comprising plural tube sheet layers 1-6.
Nehlen, III ‘458 teaches a filter apparatus comprising a tube sheet plate 43 that is raised and lowered by a pneumatic actuator 45.
Soriente et al. teaches a filter apparatus comprising an access opening 32 in the top of a casing 12 for use in installing and removing filter cartridges 30.
Allowable Subject Matter
While currently rejected (see above), claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach the subject matter concerning the restrictor plates recited in lines 17-22 of claim 1 in combination with the other claimed subject matter (including the retaining plate segments and access port limitations of claim 1).
While currently rejected (see above), claim 23 is considered to recite allowable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach the subject matter concerning the restrictor plate recited in claim 23 in combination with the other claimed subject matter (including the retaining plate segments and access port limitations of claim 22).
While currently rejected (see above), claim 25 is considered to recite allowable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach the subject matter concerning the diffuser plate recited in claim 25 in combination with the other claimed subject matter (including the retaining plate segments and access port limitations of claim 22).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 16 and 20 are objected to because:
In claim 2, “has a [perimeter]first and second sides that defines a” (ll. 1-2) should read “has [a perimeter]first and second sides that [defines] define a”.
In claim 16, “[is]are” (l. 2) should read “is”.
In claim 20, “the [diffuser plate and the other diffuser plate]both diffuser plates” (ll. 1-2) should read “[the diffuser plate and the other diffuser plate]both of the diffuser plates”
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). Correction is required due to the specification’s failure to describe:
The access port as having a smaller cross-sectional area than a cross-sectional area of the interior cavity (claim 1, ll. 3-4; claim 22, ll. 13-14).
The diffuser plate as disposed between the filter media tubes and the inlet (claims 17 and 25).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(a)(2). When filing a reissue application, applicant must submit a clean copy of each drawing sheet of the printed patent. However, the drawings filed in this application on January 23, 2025 are not a clean copy of each drawing sheet of the printed patent. Correction is required in response to this action.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Claim 4 recites “wherein each of the restrictor plates is configured to be installed in the tube sheet assembly in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes each of the restrictor plates to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.” Plural installation configurations are not shown.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the restrictor plate is configured to be installed in the tube sheet assembly in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes the restrictor plate to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.” Plural installation configurations are not shown.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 3, 8 and 9 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
In Fig. 4, reference number “57” should be changed to “55”. See Fig. 5; col. 4, l. 31.
Reference number 64 is mentioned in the specification (col. 4, l. 52), but it does not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In Fig. 5, the lead line for reference number 56d is not properly directed to the lowest of the four retaining plates.
In Fig. 6, the upper occurrence of reference number 59 properly labels the gasket (see col. 4, ll. 20-22). However, the lower occurrence of reference number 59 is improper because it is directed to a plate segment instead of the gasket.
In Fig. 6, reference number 56d appears to be inaccurate. The retaining plate 56d is the lowest of the four retaining plates in Fig. 5, but in Fig. 6 the retaining plate 56d appears to be an upper retaining plate.
In Fig. 8, the lead line for the right occurrence of reference number 136 is not properly directed to a free distal edge of the diffuser 130. See col. 6, ll. 44-45.
The drawing objections will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the drawings have been corrected. However, applicant’s replacement drawing sheets are improper for the reasons give above. Further, applicant has not complied with 37 CFR 1.173(a)(2) by submitting a clean copy of each drawing sheet of the printed patent.
With respect to the objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a), applicant argues the Fig. 6 provides a sufficient illustration. The examiner disagrees because Fig. 6 does not show the restrictor plates installed/installable in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes each of the restrictor plates to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.
Concerning compliance with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant argues that col. 6, lines 37-39 provides antecedent basis for the subject matter of claims 17 and 25. The examiner disagrees because col. 6, lines 37-39 does not describe the diffuser plate as disposed between the filter media tubes and the inlet.
With respect to the new matter recited in claims 1 and 22, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is inherent by the language of the specification as original filed. The examiner disagrees. The original disclosure states that the prior art’s use of a removable lid adds space requirements to the filter device. However, the original disclosure makes no mention of applicant’s invention facilitating a reduced dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus.
With respect to the new matter recited in claims 15 and 22, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is supported by Figs. 3 and 4. The examiner disagrees. The original disclosure does not describe the access ports 34 as having any “central axis”. Further, the original disclosure does not describe the access ports 34 as having any axial dimension or orientation. Thus, the claimed subject matter encompasses subject matter that fails to find support in the original disclosure.
With respect to the new matter recited in claims 18 and 21, applicant argues that the disclosed function of the diffuser plate requires that it be solid throughout its entirety. This argument fails because the diffuser plate can perform its intended function of directing all flow of water from the inlet to the full width of the cavity even if it is not solid throughout its entirety. For example, the diffuser plate could have fastener holes that receive fasteners for securing it in place; such a construction would not be solid throughout its entirety, but it would be capable of performing the claimed function. Applicant further argues that the claimed subject matter is supported by Fig. 8. However, patent drawings are not required to show every detail and, thus, by themselves cannot be relied upon to support an exclusive claim limitation such as the diffuser plate being solid throughout its entirety.
With respect to the rejections of claims 4 and 24 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), applicant argues the Fig. 6 provides a sufficient description of the claimed subject matter. The examiner disagrees because Fig. 6 does not show the restrictor plates installed/installable in a plurality of installation configurations, wherein each of the installation configurations causes each of the restrictor plates to sealably obstruct a unique number of the bores.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the retaining plate segments of Beyer et al. are very different in size and shape from the retaining plate segments as claimed. This argument fails because claim 22 does not restrict the retaining plate segments to a specifically-defined shape and size. Further, this argument fails because it amounts to piecemeal analysis. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hubbard teaches a plurality of individual retaining plate segments 74 that can be removed and lifted away using handles 75 for inspection of the filter tubes 16 located thereunder. Beyer et al. teaches the desireability of using an access port (rather than requiring removal of the entire top) to remove retaining plate segments. As taught by Beyer et al., the skilled artisan would have been led to modify Hubbard in this manner because it allows for inspection and removal of Hubbard’s filter tubes 16 without requiring removal of the tube sheet plate 15 and without requiring removal of the entire removable top 17 of the casing 10.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that, due to the differences in size and shape between the retaining plate segments of Hubbard and those of Beyer et al., a person of ordinary skill would not have reasonably expected the combination of Hubbard and Beyer et al. to be successful. This argument fails because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the skilled artisan possesses the ability to incorporate an access port, as taught by Beyer et al., into Hubbard while sizing and locating the access port appropriately such that it allows for removal of the retaining plate segments of Hubbard.
Final Action
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).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights