DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the with amendments and remarks filed 01/29/2026 in which claims 1 and 11 have been amended and claim 27 has been newly added, thus claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-18, 23-24 and 27 are pending and ready for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reducing agent injector system” in claim 1 is being interpreted to be as shown in Fig. 1, i.e. a reducing agent solution which is supplied to a fluid conduit of the system upstream of the reactor optionally including a pump (see Fig.1 and [0038]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 23-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0124150 A1 (hereinafter “Litz”) in view of US 6,942,807 (hereinafter “Meng”).
Regarding Claim 1 Litz discloses a continuous system for removing chromium from a raw aqueous medium comprising:
a water inlet 302 configured to receive a raw aqueous medium;
a reactor media housed in a reactor media unit comprising a column, the reactor media comprising a zeolite, wherein the zeolite is clinoptilolite [0022]; and
wherein the zeolite is treated with “with a solution of ferrous Sulfate, ferrous chloride, or other like ferrous containing solutions” in either a batch reaction or “by circulating a ferrous containing solution over a target zeolite, for example by using an up-flow circulation system. The ferrous containing solution is recycled over the target zeolite for a period of time, number of bed volumes, or until a measured amount of ferrous-iron is loaded onto the Zeolite” [0033];
a solids filtration unit in fluid communication with the reactor media unit (“other filtration devices can be added at the discharge end of the column to prevent or minimize the amount of precipitate from entering the discharge” [0043], and filters 320 may be included between columns 314 to “minimize the amount of ferrous-form Zeolite that escapes each column run” [0050]),
wherein the aqueous medium is introduced to the reactor media unit in an upflow direction (Fig. 3, [0040], [0043]) and a resultant flow exits the reactor media unit and is then introduced to the solids filtration unit (i.e. because filters 320 may be placed between columns 314, [0050]) to produce a treated aqueous medium; [0049]-[0052]; and
further comprising a backflow inlet and a backflow outlet (the usual inlet and outlet may function as a backflow inlet and a backflow outlet) in fluid communication with the solids filtration unit.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the solids filtration unit is periodically backwashed by connecting a fresh water source to the backflow inlet and opening the backflow outlet such that fresh water flows in an upflow direction from the backflow outlet through the solids filtration unit and out of the backflow outlet to release and collect the captured reduced chromium and oxidized reducing agent” this is a functional limitation which attempts to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. It is specifically noted that the claim thus does not positively claim backwashing or a fresh water source. This functional limitation does not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Litz in view of Meng would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. even though the specific function is not disclosed.
Litz does not disclose (1) a ferrous reducing agent introduced via a reducing agent injector system, which is upstream of the reactor unit, to the raw aqueous medium to form a reducing solution; or (2) the effluent exiting the column is introduced to the solids filtration unit in a downflow direction.
However, with regard to (1) a reducing agent injector system; as Litz discloses that the zeolite may be loaded with iron via by circulating a ferrous containing solution over a target zeolite using an up-flow circulation system [0033], it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the upflow columns 314 to initially load the zeolites with the iron, because said column is already available and configured to house the zeolite and operate in an upflow manner. Where using said columns to load the zeolite would obviously include providing a means to introduce a ferrous reducing agent to a water source to form said ferrous reducing solution upstream of the reactor unit (i.e. as necessary so that the formed solution may be introduced to the reactor unit) and thus allows/causes flowing of the reducing solution through the reactor and solids filtration unit as claimed, and fluid conduits as needed to recirculate the ferrous/reducing solution through the columns.
With specific regard to how to accomplish introducing said ferrous reducing agent to the raw aqueous medium to form said reducing solution, via a reducing agent injector system; Meng discloses a similar system for removing chromium from an aqueous medium including
a reducing agent (C4/L40-50) introduced to the raw aqueous medium to form a reducing solution;
a reactor media (iron filings) housed in a reactor media unit (column 2) comprising a column, wherein the reducing agent is injected upstream of the reactor, and
where it is disclosed chemicals can be dosed via an on-line mixer or injection port with metering pump (i.e. a reducing agent injector system) ; (Figs. 1-2; C4/L45-48; C5/L18-20, 58-67).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Litz by adding a means of introducing a ferrous agent to a water feed source upstream of a column via a chemical injection pump and inline mixer (i.e. a reducing agent injector system as claimed) as used by Meng because this use of a known means to injected ferrous reducing agents into a fluid feed stream upstream of a column.
Wherein the in-line mixer must necessarily and obviously be downstream of the water inlet.
With regard to (2) a downflow solids filtration unit, Meng further discloses a solids filtration unit (sand filter 3) in fluid communication with the reactor media unit, wherein the reducing solution is introduced to the reactor media unit in an upflow direction and a resultant flow exits the reactor media unit and is then introduced to the solids filtration unit in a downflow direction to produce a treated aqueous medium; (Figs. 1-2; C4/L45-48; C5/L18-20, 58-67). Where specifically the flow is shown to be in an upflow direction through the iron bed filter 2 and in the down flow direction for the sand filter; Figs. 1-2, and would therefore have been obvious to use those flow directions.
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Litz by substituting for the filter after the column (supra) a downflow solids filtration unit (sand filter) as disclosed by Meng because this involves the obvious substitution of known solids filters used after an iron treatment bed for removing chromium, and because it can retain any particular materials, like the bed particles, which flow out of the bed for recovery later by backwash.
With regard to the limitation “at a flow rate of about 0.1 mq/L to about 1.2 mq/L” and “wherein the solids filtration unit is periodically backwashed by connecting a fresh water source to the backflow inlet and opening the backflow outlet such that fresh water flows in an upflow direction from the backflow inlet through the solids filtration unit and out of the backflow outlet to release and collect the captured reduced chromium and oxidized reducing agent”, these are functional limitations which attempt to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”; see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. It is specifically noted that the claim thus does not positively claim backwashing or a fresh water source. These functional limitations do not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Litz in view of Meng would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. backwashing and delivering the ferrous reducing agent at a flow rate of about 0.1 mq/L to about 1.2 mq/L, even though the specific function is not disclosed.
Note: the limitation “raw aqueous medium” is not defined in any structural way and thus many be any aqueous medium.
Regarding Claim 3 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the reducing agent is ferrous sulfate [0033].
Regarding Claim 5 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the zeolite is a transition metal-loaded zeolite [0033].
Regarding Claim 6 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the transition metal is iron [0033].
Regarding Claim 9 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the solids filtration unit is pictured to be a vertical column, and further it is disclosed it is known to use sand in a column (Meng C1/L36-39), and thus it is seen as obvious to use the sand filter in the form of a vertical column.
Regarding Claim 10 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the aqueous medium is water from a drinking water source (Litz [0044]).
Regarding Claim 23 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, where it is seen as obvious to load the column with zeolite before it has been treated and treat it in the filtration column (detailed supra).
Regarding Claim 24 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, and with regard to “wherein a precipitate flows through the reactor media unit and is filtered by the solids filtration unit”; these are functional limitations which attempt to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. These functional limitations do not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Litz in view of Meng would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. even though the specific functions are not disclosed.
Regarding Claim 27 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the water inlet, the reducing agent injector system, the inline mixer, and the reactor media unit are seen to be configured such that during use they may be operated so the reducing solution replenishes the ferrous reducing agent on the zeolite when run continuously. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”; see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litz in view of Meng in view of US7025887 (hereinafter “Kirts”).
Regarding claim 7 Litz in view of Meng discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the solids filtration unit is a sand filter, which is a vertical column (Meng Fig. 1), but does not specifically disclose it includes graded sand.
However Kirts discloses a system for removing toxic metals from storm water runoff to provide clean water which includes removing chromium and uses a vertical column of graded sand for filtration and removing toxic metals (Figs. 4, 10-11; claim 9, C5/L54-61; C6/L24-28).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Litz in view of Meng by using a column of graded sand for the sand filter further filtering the contaminated water as in Kirts because this will help further purify the contaminated water.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered and with regard to claim 11 are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the prior art does not motivate using the ferrous reducing agent added to the raw aqueous medium at a flow rate of about 0.1 mg/L to about 1.2 mg/L. As argued by Applicants, Litz discloses using ferrous reducing agent to load the zeolite media and not to directly treat the aqueous media, and thus does not motivate using an amount in the ranges claimed in order to treat raw aqueous medium continuously.
Claims 11-18 therefore contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-18 and 23-26 is withdrawn in view of Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-18 and 23-26 is withdrawn in view of Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 11 are persuasive, as noted above.
In response to Applicants’ arguments directed to claim 1, that the cited prior art does not disclose or motivate adding the ferrous reducing agent to the raw aqueous medium at a flow rate of about 0.1 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L; the Examiner disagrees. However, claim 1 is to a system, and thus the specific amount of ferrous reducing agent introduced, i.e. “at a flow rate of about 0.1 mq/L to about 1.2 mq/L”, is a functional limitation which attempts to define this apparatus claim’s structure in terms of its functional abilities. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”; see MPEP 2114), and thus the prior art need only disclose structure capable of achieving the recited function(s) to read on the functional limitations. This functional limitation does not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Litz in view of Meng would be capable of delivering the ferrous reducing agent at a flow rate of about 0.1 mq/L to about 1.2 mq/L, i.e. even though the specific function is not disclosed. Therefore arguments concerning the amount of ferrous reducing agent added are not persuasive with regard to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights