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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all of the outstanding claims based on Adams alone under 35 U.S.C. 102, or 35 U.S.C. 103, based on Adams alone, or in view of Hauschlid or Khamizov, respectfully, have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 28, recite structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitations of a chamber as arranged to contain specific material, raising and maintaining of water pH, and suspending of solid material within a body of water in claim 1,
flow rate of water through the vessel in claim 9,
specific material which the vessel is capable of containing in claims 7 and 8,
connection of vessels to a bottling plant machinery in claim 11,
sending information to a control panel and operator in claim 12,
maintaining and adjusting of reactor conditions and control of one or more valves or pumps for regulating water flow rate in claim 14,
providing wireless data to remote stations in claim 15 and enhancing pH levels,
and further cleaning and purifying outlet water by an enzymatic process in claim 28.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article or material worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states 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.”
Hence claims 1, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 28 are each interpreted as being limited to their respective, positively recited structural apparatus components and component features, with the respective terminology regarding the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation is “means for feeding water to the vessel via the water inlet “in claim 1. Such limitation is interpreted in view of the Specification at page 5, lines 8-11 as including one or more pumps and/or one or more valves, or in view of the Specification at page 12, lines 21-25 as including “pipework”.
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.
Claims 1, 4-15, 17-19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in line 7 “the solid material” lacks antecedent basis, since preceding text of claim as now amended now recites a vessel chamber which is “arranged to contain…solid…material”, hence does not recite actual presence of such material; and “within the range 7 to 11” is grammatically confusing, insertion of “of” after “range” is necessary.
In each of claims 6 and 11, it is unclear whether the “plurality of vessels” includes the “vessel” introduced in claim 1.
In claim 9, “the flow rate” lacks antecedent basis and “the vessel or each vessel” is inconsistent with claim 1 which recites only a single vessel.
In claim 10, meaning of “a filed control box” is unclear, simply “control box” is suggested.
In claim 14, “the reaction conditions” and “the amount of material used” each lacks antecedent basis, and and it is unclear whether the plurality of water quality probes are positively recited components within or associated with the vessel or with the apparatus, generally; and “the material” lacks antecedent basis, since preceding text of claim as now amended now recites a vessel chamber which is “arranged to contain…solid…material”, hence does not recite actual presence of such material; “the flow rate of water” also lacking in antecedent basis.
In claim 19, “each end” lacks antecedent basis, as it is unclear what dimension of the vessel is being recited as having ends.
In claim 28, each of “the outlet alkaline water” and “the pH levels” lacks antecedent basis and are not consistent with terminology of claim 1, and it is unclear whether “further clean and purify” and “enzymatic process” correspond to any particular structural feature or component of the apparatus.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Each of claims 7-9 do not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which they depend, since they are directed to functional aspects of flow rate through the vessel or to material which the vessel may contain, respectively and no new structural components or features of the apparatus or vessel are recited.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sand patent 5,522,419.
For independent claim 1, Sand literally discloses: An apparatus for the treatment of water (chemical mixer and eductor for treating cleaning water by mixing cleaning and sanitizing chemicals as shown in figures 1 and 2 and described column 1, lines 14-17 and column 2, lines 21-25),
the apparatus comprising a vessel (chemical eductor 20) having a water inlet 24 and a water outlet 26 (figures 1 and 2 and column 3, lines 29-38);
means for feeding water to the vessel via the water inlet (threaded coupling connector 40 connected to a liquid source or water supply valve, column 3, lines 36-38),
the vessel comprising a chamber (interior of the vessel defined by vessel side walls 154 and 54/56 which includes chamber portion 82 (figures 1 and 2 and description of figure 3, lines 49-58) arranged to contain a body of water (column 2, lines 31-37), and
means, located within the vessel and connected to the water inlet , for causing circulatory motion of water entering the vessel chamber (eductor or venturi section 36, coupled to the water inlet via vessel interior walls 141, 64 and 54, and a mixing or circular motion of cleaning fluid 28 entering the vessel chamber portion 82, which inherently may constitute an aqueous solution of cleaning chemical “concentrate”, see column 4, lines 32-38, as it mixes with water from the water inlet 24, see column 1, lines 19-25 and column 4, lines 32-41),
wherein the means for causing circulatory motion comprises a venturi effect inducing device located within the chamber (see also column 1, lines 27-33 regarding eductor, i.e. “venturi”).
Independent claim 1 also recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitations of the chamber as arranged to contain a body of water and a solid particulate or granular material comprising one or more elementary metals or oxides thereof capable of raising the pH of the water, raising and maintaining of water pH, and suspending of solid material within the body of water.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article or material worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states 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.”
Dependent claims 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 28 recite structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitations of flow rate of water through the vessel in claims 2 and 9, specific material which the vessel is capable of containing in claims 7 and 8, connection of vessels to a bottling plant machinery in claim 11, sending information to a control panel and operator in claim 12, maintaining and adjusting of reactor conditions and control of one or more valves or pumps for regulating water flow rate in claim 14, providing wireless data to remote stations in claim 15 and enhancing pH levels and further cleaning and purifying outlet water by an enzymatic process in claim 28.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article or material worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states 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.”
Sand further literally discloses:
for claim 4, wherein the means for causing circulatory motion further comprises a pipe extending within the chamber (pipe section 120, figures 1 and 2, and column 5, lines 48-49);
for claim 5, wherein the venturi effect- inducing device is connected to the water inlet via connecting ribs (walls or baffles 54, the venturi effect-inducing device having a semi-rectangular shaped body, an upper vent and a lower vent (first vents 50 and second vents 63, see figures 1 and 2 and column 3, lines 49-66).
Sand lacks disclosure of wherein
for claim 7, wherein the material comprises up to 17 metals and/or their oxides (no presence of metals is disclosed, “up to 17” reading on zero”);
for claim 8, wherein the material comprises one or more of the oxides of calcium, potassium, sodium, manganese, zinc, magnesium, germanium, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, cobalt, nickel, boron, vanadium, molybdenum and selenium; and,
for claim 9, wherein the flow rate through the vessel or each vessel is from 25 to 150 litres/min.
However, all of these limitations are deemed to constitute material worked on by the claimed apparatus, and do not further limit the apparatus.
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 6, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sand patent 5,522,419.
For claim 6, Sand lacks disclosure of wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of vessels as defined in claim 1, however such plurality of vessels is deemed to constitute a mere obvious duplication of parts, which is also suggested in sands at column 2, lines 20-25 regarding the chemical eductor apparatus being of simplified design which can be easily manufactured with little or no machining.
For claim 11, Sand lacks disclosure of wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of vessels as defined in claim 1, and pipework configured to interconnect the vessels, the pipework being capable of connecting the plurality of vessels to machinery of a bottling plant, however again, such plurality of vessels is deemed to constitute a mere obvious duplication of parts, which is also suggested in sands at column 2, lines 20-25 regarding the chemical eductor apparatus being of simplified design which can be easily manufactured with little or no machining, such plurality of vessels inherently being coupled by interconnecting vessels, so as to provide larger amounts of concentrated cleaning chemicals for public water supply uses, as suggested by column 1, lines 36-41.
For claim 18, Sand lacks disclosure of wherein the vessel has a footprint of approximately 1.5m (L), 1.5m (W) and 1.5m (H), however states in column 7, lines 38-46 that sizes and shapes of various pieces of the vessel may vary, hence overall footprint of the vessel obviously varying and being an optimizable variable
Such vessel footprint dimensions are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the size of the vessel to use in a particular commercial cleaning application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 28 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of respective recitations of:
for claim 10, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more modules, each comprising an external tank for inlet feed water, a manual butterfly valve, an external pump for inlet feed water, an automatic butterfly valve, the vessel as defined in claim 1, a control panel, a filed control box, a modular diaphragmatic valve, a tank for outlet water, an external pump for outlet water, an external mounting framework, a media exchange box, and a filtration cartridge;
for claim 12, the apparatus is provided with a plurality of performance and water quality probes which are configured to send data information to a control panel to enable an operator to view the data information;
for claim 13, wherein the apparatus is provided with probes for water pH, conductivity, temperature, water pressure, water flow, water presence and water level;
for claim 14, wherein the apparatus includes a control panel comprising a programmable logic controller (PLC) that is programmed with an algorithm that controls, maintains and adjusts the reaction conditions within the apparatus by computing data information from a plurality of water quality probes as well as the amount of material used, the chemical and physical properties of the elements within the material, and the target desirable chemical and physical properties of the outlet water, the PLC being configured to control one or more valves or pumps to regulate the flow rate of water through the apparatus in response to a comparison of the data information with target parameters;
for claim 15, wherein the apparatus includes a control panel providing wireless feed to remote stations;
for claim 17, wherein the vessel is tubular in shape, manufactured of food grade materials, and attached into an external metal framework;
for claim 19, wherein the vessel is tubular in shape and provided at each end with an openable lid; and,
for claim 28, wherein the apparatus is provided with a media exchange box configured to interact with the outlet alkaline water to activate and enhance the pH levels and also further clean and purify the outlet alkaline water by means of an enzymatic process.
Sand lacks a disclosure or teaching, and teaches away from, in particular, for combining the disclosed venturi and eduction vessel, for use in providing mixture of cleaning chemical aqueous solution, and:
including the control panel or control box of claim 10, since the vessel is designed for preselected proportional dispensing of cleaning chemicals into an aqueous solution;
including the control panel operable for providing wireless feed to remote stations of claim 15, since the vessel is designed for on-site mixing of cleaning chemicals;
being manufactured of food grade materials for claim 17, since cleaning chemicals are inherently not provided for human consumption or direct human contact;
for having an lid at each end of the vessel for claim 19, since the vessel is designed for streamlined flowing water therethrough (Abstract); or , being provided with a media exchange box configured to interact with the outlet alkaline water to activate and enhance the pH levels, for claim 28, since Sands is silent regarding any desired pH levels for the mixing of cleaning chemical with water.
None of the previously applied prior art is now deemed to teach or suggest the means for causing circulatory motion comprising a venturi effect inducing device as recited in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
08/22/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights