DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the flow of stormwater” in lines 1-2 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the recitation “a flow of stormwater” or define “a flow of stormwater earlier in the claim”.
Claim 6 recites “the flow of stormwater” in line 2 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the recitation “a flow of stormwater” or define “a flow of stormwater earlier in the claim”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcanec et al. (US 2018/0245327 A1, hereinafter “Babcanec”), in view of Kuntz (US 5,569,381).
In regard to claim 1, Babcanec discloses a separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater (e.g., a stormwater runoff) (Abstract), wherein the system comprises (Fig. 8, Figs. 1-7 and Figs. 9-12 are detailed descriptions of subcomponents of the separator shown in Fig. 8; paragraphs [0033]-[0074]):
(i) a tubular body (the cylinder body covering the manhole 200, Fig. 8), the tubular body comprising an inlet chamber (a space above liquid quality device 801, Fig. 8) and a sump chamber (a space below the liquid quality device 240, Fig. 8);
(ii) an upper cone (111, Fig. 1 or 810, Fig. 8) separating the inlet chamber from the sump chamber, wherein:
the upper cone comprises a first end (an upper surface encompassing the larger circumference of the upper cone 111, Fig. 1) and a second end (a lower surface encompassing sump inlet aperture 112, Fig. 1 having the smaller circumference), wherein a diameter of the first end is greater than a diameter of the second end (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8); and
the upper cone is oriented in the tubular body with the first end above the second end (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8);
(iii) a supporting portion(s) (860, Fig. 8) is installed extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber (paragraph [0066]), wherein the supporting portions could be a circumferential supporting portion(s), or multiple supporting portions around the perimeter of the sump region (240, Fig. 8), wherein the supporting portion(s) meets the recited “a vertical cylinder extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber”; and
(iv) at least one lower drag inducing portions (850, Fig. 8) located in the sump chamber, wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region (Fig. 8).
But Babcanec does not explicitly disclose the recited feature of “at least one lower cone located in the sump chamber: each of the at least one lower cones comprises a first end and a second end, wherein a diameter of the first end is greater than a diameter of the second end; and each of the at least one lower cones is oriented in the tubular body with the second end above the first end”.
However, Kuntz discloses devices for separating particulate matter from liquids (col. 1, lines 4-5), especially for treating stormwater run-off (col. 2, lines 12-17). Kuntz discloses a device of an upflow clarifier comprising (Fig. 6; cols. 6-7, claim 1): an enclosure defining a bounded volume for holding liquid; an inlet coupled to said enclosure; an outlet coupled to the enclosure above said inlet; a barrier in said enclosure, between said inlet and said outlet, said barrier having a plurality of apertures therethrough, and said barrier defining an upper compartment above said barrier and a lower compartment below said barrier; a plurality of filter membranes respectively mounted to said apertures, wherein liquid flowing through said apertures flows through said filter membranes, said filter membranes extending upwardly from said barrier; a downwardly directed baffle in fluid communication with said inlet; and a particulate restriction member above said baffle and below said barrier.
Kuntz discloses the feature of “at least one lower cone located in the sump chamber: each of the at least one lower cones comprises a first end and a second end, wherein a diameter of the first end is greater than a diameter of the second end; and each of the at least one lower cones is oriented in the tubular body with the second end above the first end” (a baffle in the shape of inverted truncated cone 24, Fig. 8) installed in the device of an upflow clarifier, and further discloses that: The baffle (24, Fig. 8) provides a hood around which the liquid must flow. This promotes settling of most of the heavy particles before the liquid starts to flow upwardly. In the preferred embodiment, the baffle 24, Fig. 8 has a conical shape, which has been found to be the best shape to promote settling. However, alternatively shaped baffles can be employed (col. 4, lines 18-23).
It is noted that both the Babcanec and Kuntz references direct a separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater such as a stormwater runoff.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater of Babcanec to provide the feature of “at least one lower cone located in the sump chamber: each of the at least one lower cones comprises a first end and a second end, wherein a diameter of the first end is greater than a diameter of the second end; and each of the at least one lower cones is oriented in the tubular body with the second end above the first end” (a baffle in the shape of inverted truncated cone 24, Fig. 8) installed in the device of an upflow clarifier as taught by Kuntz, because the recited feature of inverted truncated cone is a known, effective features for providing a hood around which the liquid must flow which promotes settling of most of the heavy particles before the liquid starts to flow upwardly (Kuntz col. 4, lines 18-23).
In regard to claim 2, Babcanec discloses the tubular body (the cylinder body covering the manhole 200, Fig. 8) further comprises an inlet (220, Fig. 8) and an outlet (230, Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 3, Babcanec discloses the inlet chamber (the space above liquid quality device 801, Fig.) is configured to contain the flow of stormwater entering the tubular body (the cylinder body covering the manhole 200, Fig. 8 from the inlet 220, Fig. 1; paragraphs [0037]-[0039]).
In regard to claim 4, Babcanec discloses the first end of the upper cone (an upper surface encompassing the larger circumference of the upper cone 111, Fig. 1) contacts an inner wall of the tubular body (Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 5, Babcanec discloses the second end of the upper cone (a lower surface encompassing sump inlet aperture 112, Fig. 1 having the smaller circumference) is connected to the supporting portion(s) (860, Fig. 8) (a vertical cylinder) that is installed extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber (paragraph [0066]), wherein the supporting portions (a vertical cylinder) could be a circumferential supporting portion(s), or multiple supporting portions around the perimeter of the sump region (240, Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 6, Babcanec discloses the upper cone further comprises a weir box (120, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) at the first end, wherein the weir box is configured to prevent the flow of stormwater in the inlet chamber from exiting the inlet chamber through an outlet in the tubular body (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
In regard to claims 7, 8 and 9, Babcanec discloses the settled particulates can be cleaned out through either the sump inlet aperture 112, Fig. 1 the sump outlet aperture 114, Fig. 1 or an additional aperture (not shown) in the liquid quality device 100. For example, a tube can be inserted through one or more of these apertures, and a vacuum can be applied through the tube (paragraph [0044]) which renders the recitation “the vertical cylinder comprises an inlet port” prima facie obvious.
Babcanec discloses the vertical cylinder comprises an opening (112, Fig. 1) communicated with the inlet (220, Fig. 8) which renders the recitation “the inlet port comprises an opening in the vertical cylinder located above the upper cone” prima facie obvious recited in claim 8.
In addition, Babcanec discloses a supporting portion(s) (860, Fig. 8) (a vertical cylinder) is installed extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber (paragraph [0066]), wherein the supporting portions could be a circumferential supporting portion(s), or multiple supporting portions around the perimeter of the sump region (240, Fig. 8) which directs there is a space (i.e., a window) between the supporting portions. As a result, the teachings of Babcanec renders the recitations “the vertical cylinder comprises at least one window” (claim 7) and “the at least one window comprises an opening in the vertical cylinder located below the upper cone” (claim 9) prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 10, Babcanec discloses: Moreover, the plurality of supporting portion(s) 860 may be spaced equidistant around a perimeter of the sump region 240. A perimeter means proximate or on the sidewall of manhole 200 in the sump region 240. Alternatively, the plurality of supporting portion(s) 860 may be irregularly spaced around the perimeter of the sump region 240. The supporting portion(s) 860 may also comprise a different shape. Alternatively, the supporting portion(s) 860 could be triangular, square, oval, parallelogram, etc. and may be positioned equidistant or irregularly around the perimeter of the sump region 240. Moreover, the supporting portion(s) 860 may be attached to the sidewall of the sump region 240. Additionally, the supporting portion(s) 860 may be integrated into the body of the manhole 200, and/or partitioning portion 810, and/or base 210, or they may be separate pieces that work or connect together to achieve the functions described herein. A plurality of supporting portions 860 may be beneficial for efficient manufacture and installation (paragraph [0066]). The supporting portions(s) taught by Babcanec meets the recited “a vertical cylinder extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber”.
In light of teachings from Babcanec, in its entirety, the claimed feature of “the vertical cylinder comprises a corrugated-walled tubular body” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the liquid separation operation (residence time, throughput), the geometry of the separator bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water output.
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Kuntz discloses the second end of the lower cone (24, Fig. 1) is connected to the vertical cylinder (28, Fig. 1). In addition, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, the recitation of “the at least one lower cone comprises four lower cones” is considered obvious over the teaching of Kuntz.
In regard to claim 13, Babcanec discloses a separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater (e.g., a stormwater runoff) (Abstract), wherein the system comprises (Fig. 8, Figs. 1-7 and Figs. 9-12 are detailed descriptions of subcomponents of the separator shown in Fig. 8; paragraphs [0033]-[0074]):
(i) a tubular body (the cylinder body covering the manhole 200, Fig. 8), the tubular body comprising an inlet chamber (a space above liquid quality device 801, Fig. 8) and a sump chamber (a space below the liquid quality device 240, Fig. 8);
(ii) an upper cone (111, Fig. 1 or 810, Fig. 8) separating the inlet chamber from the sump chamber, wherein:
(iii) a supporting portion(s) (860, Fig. 8) is installed extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber (paragraph [0066]), wherein the supporting portions could be a circumferential supporting portion(s), or multiple supporting portions around the perimeter of the sump region (240, Fig. 8) which meets the recited “a vertical cylinder extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber”; and
(iv) at least one lower drag inducing portions (850, Fig. 8) located in the sump chamber, wherein the plurality of drag-inducing portions projecting inwardly towards a central axis of the sump region (Fig. 8).
But Babcanec does not explicitly disclose the recited feature of “at least one inverted truncated cone located in the sump chamber”.
However, Kuntz discloses devices for separating particulate matter from liquids (col. 1, lines 4-5), especially for treating stormwater run-off (col. 2, lines 12-17). Kuntz discloses a device of an upflow clarifier comprising (Fig. 6; cols. 6-7, claim 1): an enclosure defining a bounded volume for holding liquid; an inlet coupled to said enclosure; an outlet coupled to the enclosure above said inlet; a barrier in said enclosure, between said inlet and said outlet, said barrier having a plurality of apertures therethrough, and said barrier defining an upper compartment above said barrier and a lower compartment below said barrier; a plurality of filter membranes respectively mounted to said apertures, wherein liquid flowing through said apertures flows through said filter membranes, said filter membranes extending upwardly from said barrier; a downwardly directed baffle in fluid communication with said inlet; and a particulate restriction member above said baffle and below said barrier.
Kuntz discloses the feature of “at least one inverted truncated cone located in the sump chamber” (a baffle in the shape of inverted truncated cone 24, Fig. 8), and further discloses that: The baffle (24, Fig. 8) provides a hood around which the liquid must flow. This promotes settling of most of the heavy particles before the liquid starts to flow upwardly. In the preferred embodiment, the baffle 24, Fig. 8 has a conical shape, which has been found to be the best shape to promote settling. However, alternatively shaped baffles can be employed (col. 4, lines 18-23).
It is noted that both the Babcanec and Kuntz references direct a separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator for removing contaminants from a flow of wastewater of Babcanec to provide the feature of “at least one inverted truncated cone located in the sump chamber” (a baffle in the shape of inverted truncated cone 24, Fig. 8) installed in the device of an upflow clarifier as taught by Kuntz, because the recited feature is a known, effective features for providing a hood around which the liquid must flow which promotes settling of most of the heavy particles before the liquid starts to flow upwardly (Kuntz col. 4, lines 18-23).
In regard to claim 14, Babcanec discloses a lower surface encompassing sump inlet aperture 112, Fig. 1 having smaller circumference is connected to the supporting portion(s) (860, Fig. 8) (a vertical cylinder) that is installed extending from the inlet chamber to the sump chamber (paragraph [0066]), wherein the supporting portions could be a circumferential supporting portion(s), or multiple supporting portions around the perimeter of the sump region (240, Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 15, Kuntz discloses the second end of the inverted truncated cone (24, Fig. 1) is connected to the vertical cylinder (28, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 16, the combined teachings of Babcanec, in view of Kuntz, discloses the inverted truncated (Kuntz 24, Fig. 1) cone is located below the truncated cone (Babcanec 111, Fig. 1) in the tubular body.
In regard to claim 17, Kuntz discloses the end of the inverted truncated cone (24, Fig. 1) is connected to the vertical cylinder (28, Fig. 1). In addition, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, the recitation of “the at least one inverted truncated cone is stacked vertically along the vertical cylinder” is considered prima facie obvious over the teaching of Kuntz.
In regard to claim 18, Babcanec discloses the truncated cone comprises at least one drain port (114, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 19, Kuntz discloses the inverted truncated cone (24, Fig. 1) is connected to at least one drain port (16, Fig. 1) which renders the recitation of claim 19 obvious.
In regard to claim 20, it has been held that the configuration of the claimed component was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV. Therefore, the recitation “the truncated cone and the at least one inverted truncated cone are polygonal in shape” is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Babcanec, in view of Kuntz.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No.19/193,923. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-20 directed to the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of commonly assigned U.S. Patent Application No.19/193,923. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention. The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
