DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to applicant’s response filed on January 12, 2026, which has been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheet (see explanation below).
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-25 (of which claims 1 and 22 have been amended) and new reissue claims 26 and 27 are subject to examination.
Proposed Replacement Drawings
The proposed replacement drawing sheet filed on January 12, 2026 has been disapproved by the examiner and has not been entered because:
It does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3). Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word “Amended” at the bottom of that figure, e.g., adjacent to its view number. The identifier “Amended” should be included in the amended figure and oriented in the same direction as the amended figure. See MPEP 1413.
It does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(p). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
It does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Objections to Amendments – Formalities
The claim amendments filed on January 12, 2026 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g) because:
Claim 1 includes strikethrough (l. 8), which is not proper for reissue applications.
Claims 2-21 and 23-25 includes that status identifier “(Previously presented)”, which is not proper for reissue applications. Unamended patent claims should be identified as “(Original)”.
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 “an access port…having a smaller diameter than said interior cavity” (see ll. 2-3 of claim 1). The original disclosure does not describe the access ports 34 as having any “diameter” and, thus, does not provide support for the access ports 34 having a smaller diameter than the interior cavity. The access port 34 that is visible in Fig. 2 is not shown with a circular perimeter and, thus, does not inherently possess the claimed smaller diameter.
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. 12-13 of claim 1). This original disclosure makes no mention of facilitating a reduced dimension of a space required for installation of the apparatus.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “each of the restrictor plates being…adapted to simultaneously sealably obstruct multiple ones of the bores when coupled to said tube sheet assembly” (see ll. 17-19 of claim 1). The original disclosure fails to describe the sealable obstruction of multiple bores by the restrictor plates as occurring “simultaneously”.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “said tube sheet assembly having a tube sheet plate disposed opposite the restrictor plates from one of the segments” (see ll. 19-20 of claim 1). The original disclosure fails to describe the tube sheet plate as being disposed opposite the restrictor plates from a distinct/unique “one” of the segments of the tube sheet assembly.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “whereby the restrictor plates facilitate installation of the apparatus in different environments that utilize different size filters” (see ll. 21-22 of claim 1). While the specification discloses adaptability permitting the size capacity of the apparatus to be modified after installation by adding or removing restrictor plates, the original disclosure makes no mention of facilitating installation of the apparatus in different environments that utilize different size filters.
Claim 7 (later renumbered as patent claim 2) was amended to recite “wherein each of the segments has a perimeter that defines a radial angle between 30 and 90 degrees when installed in the tube sheet assembly” (see claim 2). The specification states that the radial segments may each form a radial angle between 30 and 90 degrees. The specification also states that the angle between the first and second sides of each segment may be selected to be 30, 45, 60 or 90 degrees. However, the original disclosure fails to provide support for each segment having “a perimeter that defines” the radial angle.
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” (see ll. 2-3 of claim 15). 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 28 (later renumbered as patent claim 16) was added, with this new claim reciting “wherein the restrictor plate is non-porous except for one or more fastener holes configured to receive fasteners” (see claim 16). The original disclosure provides no explanation concerning the degree to which the restrictor plates are porous or non-porous. The specification is also silent as to the restrictor plates being provided with fastener holes for receiving fasteners.
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” (see claim 21). 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” (see ll. 12-13 of claim 22). 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 “the access port having a smaller diameter than the interior cavity” (see ll. 13-14 of claim 22). See the explanation above with respect to patent claim 1.
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.
New claim 30 (later renumbered as patent claim 23) was added, with this new claim reciting “the restrictor plate being…adapted to simultaneously sealably obstruct multiple ones of the bores when coupled to said tube sheet assembly” (see ll. 3-5 of claim 23). 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 January 12, 2026 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the reasons given below.
Amended claim 1 recites “the segments [being coplanar with each other when installed in said interior cavity and thereby] defining one or more [a common] retaining plates [plate]” (ll. 6-8). New claim 26 depends from claim 1 (and, thus, includes all the limitations of claim 1), with claim 26 further reciting “wherein the segments are coplanar with each other and thereby define a common retainer plate”. The original disclosure fails to provide support for plural segments defining plural retaining plates (as encompassed by claim 1), wherein the plural segments are coplanar with each other (as required by claim 26). When plural retaining plates are defined, the segments in one retaining plate are not coplanar with the segments in another retaining plate. See the stacked relationship of the retaining plates shown in Fig. 5. By encompassing plural segments that are coplanar and that also define more than one retaining plate, claim 26 is not supported by the original disclosure.
Amended claim 22 recites “the segments [being coplanar with each other when installed in said interior cavity and thereby] defining one or more [a common] retaining plates [plate]” (ll. 5-7). New claim 27 depends from claim 22 (and, thus, includes all the limitations of claim 22), with claim 27 further reciting “wherein the segments are coplanar with each other and thereby define a common retainer plate”. See the explanation above with respect to new claim 26.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter (added to this application) in response to this Office action.
Establishing Ownership Interest
The Statement under 3.73(c) (Form PTO/AIA /96) filed on January 23, 2025 is defective because:
It identifies “AQUIFY SYSTEM CORP.” as both the patent owner and the assignee. According to USPTO assignment records, the patent is currently assigned to Aquify Systems Corp. (not Aquify System Corp.).
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.
Consent of Assignee
The written consent of the assignee (Form PTO/AIA /53) filed on January 23, 2025 is defective because it is not signed by a person(s) identified as having the authority or the apparent authority to sign on behalf of the assignee. As explained in MPEP 325, a party signing on behalf of the assignee must be one of:
A person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer) or the chairman of the board of directors is presumed to have authority to sign. In foreign countries (but not in the US), a person who holds the title “manager” or “director” is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1
Any person, if the submission sets forth that the person signing is authorized (or empowered) to act on behalf of the assignee, i.e., to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The general title “authorized representative” is not considered to constitute the required averment that the person signing “is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee”.
A patent practitioner of record, i.e., a patent practitioner appointed in a power of attorney already of record, or where the submission is accompanied by a power of attorney that appoints the patent practitioner who signed the submission.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person empowered by an organizational resolution (e.g., corporate resolution, partnership resolution) to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee, if a copy of the resolution is, or was previously, submitted in the record.
A proper written consent of the assignee, in compliance with the current provisions of 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73, is required in reply to this Office action.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on January 23, 2025 is defective because it identifies “AQUIFY SYSTEM CORP.” as the applicant. According to USPTO’s assignment records, the patent is currently assigned to Aquify Systems Corp. (not Aquify System Corp.).
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 and/or Assignee 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 § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above.
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 2: 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. Claims 3-14, 17, 19, 20 and 24-27 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 3: 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 4: Claims 4, 5, 15, 16 and 21-27 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.
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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein each of the restrictor plates has a perimeter that corresponds to a segment in the plurality of segments forming said tube sheet assembly.” The phrase “a segment in the plurality of segments” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to a particular one of the previously recited segments, or some type of segment within the previously recited segments. The claim would be clearer if “a segment in” was changed to “one of”.
Claim 15 recites “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.” The time word “when” renders the claim indefinite because it inaccurately suggests that there are times when the filter media tubes do not extend from the bores and times when they do extend from the bores. Since the claim is directed to the filter apparatus, the structures should be defined in terms of their interrelationships in the assembled form of the claimed filter apparatus.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the restrictor plate is non-porous except for one or more fastener holes configured to receive fasteners.” The singular term “the restrictor plate” is indefinite because more than one restrictor plate is previously introduced in claim 1. It is unclear whether the limitation of claim 16 applies to all of the restrictor plates, or just one of the restrictor plates.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the diffuser plate is solid throughout its entirety.” The singular term “the diffuser plate” is indefinite because more than one diffuser plate is previously introduced in claim 20. It is unclear whether the limitation of claim 21 applies to both of the diffuser plates, or just one of the diffuser plates.
Claim 22 recites “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” (ll. 12-13). See the explanation above with respect to claim 15.
Amended claim 1 recites “the segments [being coplanar with each other when installed in said interior cavity and thereby] defining one or more [a common] retaining plates [plate]” (ll. 6-8). New claim 26 depends from claim 1 (and, thus, includes all the limitations of claim 1), with claim 26 further reciting “wherein the segments are coplanar with each other and thereby define a common retainer plate”. Based on the original disclosure, it is inaccurate to characterize the invention as having plural segments defining plural retaining plates (as encompassed by claim 1), wherein the plural segments are coplanar with each other (as required by claim 26). When plural retaining plates are defined, the segments in one retaining plate are not coplanar with the segments in another retaining plate. See the stacked relationship of the retaining plates shown in Fig. 5. By encompassing plural segments that are coplanar and that also define more than one retaining plate, claim 26 contradicts the disclosure.
In claim 26, the singular term “a common retainer plate” (l. 2) is indefinite because prior claim 1 introduces “one or more…retaining plates” (ll. 7-8). In the case of plural retaining plates (as encompassed by claim 1), it is unclear whether the “common retainer plate” of claim 26 refers to only one of the plural retaining plates, or to all of the retaining plates. Further, the term “retainer” of claim 26 is inconsistent with the term “retaining” of claim 1, creating further confusion as to the claim scope.
Amended claim 22 recites “the segments [being coplanar with each other when installed in said interior cavity and thereby] defining one or more [a common] retaining plates [plate]” (ll. 5-7). New claim 27 depends from claim 22 (and, thus, includes all the limitations of claim 22), with claim 27 further reciting “wherein the segments are coplanar with each other and thereby define a common retainer plate”. See the explanations above with respect to new claim 26.
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 5: 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 “diameter” (or crosswise dimension) 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 “diameter” (or crosswise dimension) 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 “diameter” (or crosswise dimension) 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 “common retainer plate”, as broadly claimed, at least when the segments 74 are mounted in common to the tube sheet plate 15.
GROUND 6: Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hubbard in view of Beyer et al. and further in view of Ben-Horin et al. and Sekiya et al.
See GROUND 5 for a discussion of Hubbard in view of Beyer et al. In an alternative interpretation, the access port of Beyer et al. (which is in the form of an annular segment) is considered to lack the claimed “smaller diameter” since the access port is not circular.
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.
From the teachings of Ben-Horin et al. and Sekiya 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 further modify Hubbard by using a circular access port (rather than the access port in the form of an annular segment of Beyer et al.) because a circular shape is easy to form while providing for high strength and reduced stress. Further, the substitute of one well-known shape for another is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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 16-20 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).
Specification
The specification is objected to because: at col. 3, l. 11, “line 9-9 of FIG. 7” should read “line 9-9 of FIG. 8”.
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 being offset from a center of a top of the casing (claim 1, l. 2; claim 22, ll. 11-12).
The retaining plate segments as being sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port into the interior cavity of the casing (claim 1, ll. 8-10; claim 22, ll. 14-15).
The restrictor plates as having a perimeter shape that is smaller than a perimeter shape of the tube sheet assembly (claim 1, ll. 16-17; claim 23, ll. 1-2).
The restrictor plates as having a perimeter that corresponds to a retaining plate segment forming the tube sheet assembly (claim 5).
The tube sheet assembly as disposed between the access port and the inlet (claim 15).
The diffuser plate as disposed between the filter media tubes and the inlet (claims 17 and 25).
The restrictor plates as being sized and dimensioned to be installed through the access port into the interior cavity of the casing (claim 23, ll. 5-7).
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 January 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the drawings have been corrected. However, applicant’s drawings are not proper for the reasons given above, and applicant’s replacement drawing sheet is improper for the reasons give above.
Concerning compliance with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant argues the support for claim language may be found in the drawings. This argument fails because it addresses proper support under 35 USC 112(a) rather than compliance with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which requires the claims to conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification, with the terms and phrases used in the claims finding clear support or antecedent basis in the written description. As explained in MPEP 608.01(o), examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases that are added to the claims after the filing of the original disclosure (i.e., later in prosecution) find clear support or antecedent basis in the written description portion of the specification so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
Applicant argues that the previous objection to the reissue declaration has been overcome by the corrected reissue declaration. The examiner concurs so the objection to the declaration and the corresponding rejection under 35 USC 251 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the reissue claims do not constitute improper recapture of surrendered subject matter because the surrender generating limitations are retained at least in broadened form. Applicant’s argument is persuasive, so the recapture rejection under 35 USC 251 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 based on Hubbard in view of Sekiya et al. failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness due to the lack of a reasonable motivation to combine since Sekiya et al. fails to teach the removal of retaining plate segments through the manhole (access port). This argument has merit. Therefore, the examiner has set forth a new ground of rejection based on Hubbard in view of Beyer et al., with Beyer et al. providing explicit motivation to combine as well as a teaching of removing retaining plate segments through the access port.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention differs from Sekiya et al. because Sekiya et al. has multiple manholes (access ports) whereas the invention allows for maintenance through only one access port. This argument fails because it is not commensurate with the claims. The claims are not limited to the use of only one access port.
Non-final Action
This action sets forth new grounds of rejection and, therefore, is not made final.
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).
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 Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail3 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:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 As explained above, the patent is currently assigned to Aquify Systems Corp. of Dallas, TX (i.e., a US company).
2 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).
3 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.