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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 08/18/2025. Claims 1-2, 5-12 and 14-18 are pending in the current office action. Claim 13 was cancelled by applicant, and claims 1, 17, and 18 were amended to incorporate its limitations. Claims 6-7, 10, and 16 were also amended by applicant.
During examination of the amended claims, it was noticed that claims 1, 17, and 18 recite the limitation “control unit” in lines 28, 29, and 33, respectively, rather than “controller”, as used elsewhere in the claims and in the specification. Applicant is advised to amend these limitations to recite “controller” to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Status of the Rejection
The objections to claims 6-7, 10, and 15-16 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 15-18 under U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained, and has been modified only to incorporate the limitations of now cancelled claim 13, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 2, 5-12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are substantially maintained, and have been modified only as necessary to address Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New objections to the claims are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections of claims 17-18 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 21 “a water outlet …” ends with “and”, but this should be moved to the end of line 22 “a controller …” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 1 line 22 ends with a “,”, but should end with a “;” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 1 line 32 recites “mode,”, but should recite “mode, and” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 7 line 6 recites “reference a rear TDS”, but should recite “a reference rear TDS” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 18 lines 27 and 38 each recite “a pressure acquisition device configured to obtain an internal pressure of the filter line”, one of these recitations should be removed to avoid duplicative language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbeck (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0105324 A1) in view of Rela (US Pat. No. 6607668 B2) and Millipore (“User Manual” Milli-Q® Reference System” 2010).
Regarding claim 1, Averbeck teaches an ion removal kit (“capacitive deionization system 10”, Fig. 1) comprising:
a filter unit (“flow-through capacitor 26” Fig. 1), wherein the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a consumption site (see below), removes at least a part of ionic substances contained in the received raw water by electro-deionization, and releases soft water containing a smaller amount of ionic substances than the raw water (para. 17);
a filter line (“inlet line” para. 19, comprising line on which “inlet isolation valve 16” is disposed see Fig. 1, annotated below) and configured to connect the filter unit and a water inlet opening (“feed water inlet 12”) through which the raw water is supplied (“the stream of water flows from the feed water inlet 12 … to the flow-through capacitor 26 … by passing through an inlet line” para. 19 and see Fig. 1);
a water outlet line (“outlet line 52” Fig. 1) configured to connect the filter unit and a water outlet opening (“outlet line 52 … passes through a number of components to ultimately arrive at either a treated water outlet 76 … or a drain 58” para. 22 and Fig. 1) through which the soft water is delivered to the main line (see below);
a drain line configured to drain water drained from the water outlet line to the outside through a drain hole (“outlet line 52, … branches in one direction to the drain 58, …” para. 28 and Fig. 1);
a water outlet valve connecting the water outlet line and the drain line (“drain control valve 56” Fig. 1);
a controller (“controller 78” Fig. 1) configured to control the filter unit (“controller 78 … is in electrical communication with the flow-through capacitor 26,” para. 47 and Fig. 1); and
a pressure acquisition device configured to obtain an internal pressure of the filter line (“pressure sensor 18” Fig. 1),
wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point (see below),
wherein the filter unit alternately performs a removal mode for removing the ionic substances by an electro-deionization through electrodes (“a treatment mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … removes charged constituents from the stream of water passing there through,” para. 53) and a regeneration mode for regenerating the electrodes (“a regeneration mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … eliminates or discharges the collected charged constituents to regain capacity for further treatment” para. 53), and
wherein the water outlet valve is electrically connected to the control unit (“The controller 78, … is also connected to … drain control valve 56” para. 47) and is configured to:
release the soft water delivered from the filter line into the main line in the removal mode (“In the treatment mode, … the treated water can be routed to the treated water outlet 76” para. 84), or drain the water released from the filter line through the drain line in the regeneration mode (“During regeneration, … water carrying the discharged constituents will be directed to a waste water output or drain 58” para. 97),
wherein the controller operates the filter unit when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure (“When one or more pressure sensors sense that the air or water pressure in the hydropneumatic tank 72 is below a lower set point, the controller 78 opens the control valve 62, turns on forward operation of the pump 17, and turns on the power supply for the flow-through capacitor 26” para. 48, see also para. 89).
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Averbeck Fig. 1
The limitation “the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a consumption site”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the filter unit receives raw water from a feed source (see para. 19 and Fig. 1). Thus, the filter unit of Averbeck is capable of receiving raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a consumption site. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a consumption site”.
The limitation “through which the soft water is delivered to the main line”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the water outlet opening supplies the soft water to an output (see para. 22 and Fig. 1). Thus, the water outlet opening of Averbeck is capable of supplying the soft water to the main line. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “a water outlet opening through which the soft water is delivered to the main line”.
The limitation “wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point” limits the “main line”. As currently drafted, the “main line” is not part of the claimed apparatus i.e., the “ion removal kit”, but rather an article worked on by the apparatus. The article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line” (see above). Thus, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line integrally connecting the water inlet point and the water outlet point”. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point”.
Averbeck does not explicitly teach the first pressure being the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted.
However, Averbeck further teaches a lower measured pressure typically indicates greater demand at the consumption site (para. 89).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted as the first pressure in the system of Averbeck. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, to achieve the predictable benefit of not operating the filter unit when there is low or no demand at the consumption site, as taught by Averbeck.
Averbeck does not teach the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case.
However, Rela teaches an ion removal kit (title) comprising a kit case (“outer housing 76” Fig. 1, annotated below), wherein a filter unit (“electrodeionization (EDI) module 54” Fig. 1), a filter line (comprising “conduit 18”, “conduit 26”, “conduit 48”, “conduit 58”, “stream 60” and “stream 62” Fig. 1), a water outlet line (see annotated Fig. 1), and a controller (“a control system …” col. 6 liens 15-28 and “control panel 80 is arranged on a front panel 82 of the housing 76.”, indicating the controller is inside the kit case) are provided inside the kit case and openings are provided in the kit case for external water connections (see e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2 which pass through “housing 76”).
As Averbeck and Rela each teach ion removal kits comprising controllers configured to alternate a filter unit between a removal mode and a regeneration mode, Averbeck and Rela are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Averbeck, such that the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of protecting the kit components from damage. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Rela Fig. 1
Modified Averbeck does not explicitly teach a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end located on an outside of the kit case, or a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end located on the outside of the kit case.
However, Rela further teaches connecting pipes comprising smooth pipe terminations (e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2) are attached to the case openings to enable fluid connections to external fluid conduits (“connection to an inlet water supply” col. 10 line 64 through col. 11 line 6).
Furthermore, Millipore teaches that smooth pipe terminations provide the predictable benefit of allowing the detachable and reversable connection of fluid conduits e.g., pipes (Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 2 p. 24 shows the ports have smooth pipe terminations, Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 4 p. 24 shows the smooth pipe terminations form a fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack, Replacing the Q-Gard pack step 144 p. 61 shows the fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack is removable, see also Flow Diagram p. 14).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application when modifying the system of Averbeck to comprise a kit case, to do so such that the system further comprises a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on an outside of the kit case, and a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on the outside of the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this manner to provide the predictable benefit of allowing detachable and reversable connections of the water inlet opening and the water outlet opening to fluid conduits e.g., to the water source and output, as taught by Millipore. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the main line”, as currently drafted, are functional recitations i.e., they define the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Averbeck teaches the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe are capable of being detachably connected to external water conduits (see above). Thus, the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe of modified Averbeck are capable of being detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line and a water outlet point of the main line, respectively. Modified Averbeck therefore renders obvious the limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the main line”.
The limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction” limits the “main line”, which is not a component of the “ion removal kit” as currently recited i.e., this limitation further limits the article worked on by the apparatus i.e., the “main line”, rather than the apparatus itself i.e., the “ion removal kit”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an apparatus is not limited by the article worked upon, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
As described above, Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line”. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is therefore capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line” having a water outlet point being located downstream of a water inlet point with respect to the flow direction. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) therefore reads on (or renders obvious) the limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction”.
Regarding claim 2, Averbeck further teaches a bypass line (“blend line 88” Fig. 1, annotated above) connected to the water inlet opening and the water outlet opening and configured to selectively bypass, to the water outlet opening, at least part of the raw water that is supplied through the water inlet opening and that is to be supplied to the filter unit (“blend line 88 … branches from a portion of the inlet line before the … flow-through capacitor 26 … and re-connects with the treated water outlet line after the flow-through capacitor 26,” para. 24 and see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches the controller controls the filter unit, based on a state of the raw water introduced through the water inlet opening (“some property of the water, such as the conductivity of the feed water (although other qualities can also be used), is measured according to step 704. … the controller can control one or both of the current or amperage of the flow-through capacitor and the flow rate of water through the flow-through capacitor to achieve the desired resultant property in the treated water stream according to step 708.” para. 87 and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches a filter flow rate acquisition device configured to obtain a flow rate of the raw water flowing through the filter line (“flow transducer 25” Fig. 1, annotated above),
wherein the controller operates the filter unit when the flow rate of the raw water flowing through the filter line exceeds 0 (“When there is a demand for treated water and water is flowing through the flow-through capacitor 26 … the system 10 … can enter the treatment mode” para. 84 and “The amperage of the flow-through capacitor is determined by the controller 78” para. 85).
Modified Averbeck does not explicitly teach the flow rate is obtained by the filter flow rate acquisition device.
However, Averbeck further teaches a filter flow rate acquisition device may be used to obtain the flow rate (“a flow sensor or sensors can be used to determine the demand for water” para. 89).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to obtain the flow rate using the filter flow rate acquisition device, as taught by Averbeck. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious because Averbeck explicitly teaches flow sensors are suitable for obtaining the flow rate.
Regarding claim 17, Averbeck teaches an ion removal kit (“capacitive deionization system 10”, Fig. 1) comprising:
a filter unit (“flow-through capacitor 26” Fig. 1), wherein the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a water-heating device configured to heat water and circulate or release the heated water (see below), removes at least a part of ionic substances contained in the received raw water by electric force, and releases soft water containing a smaller amount of ionic substances than the raw water (para. 17);
a filter line (“inlet line” para. 19, comprising line on which “inlet isolation valve 16” is disposed see Fig. 1, annotated above) configured to connect the filter unit and a water inlet opening (“feed water inlet 12”) through which the raw water is supplied (“the stream of water flows from the feed water inlet 12 … to the flow-through capacitor 26 … by passing through an inlet line” para. 19 and see Fig. 1);
a water outlet line (“outlet line 52” Fig. 1) configured to connect the filter unit and a water outlet opening (“outlet line 52 … passes through a number of components to ultimately arrive at either a treated water outlet 76 … or a drain 58” para. 22 and Fig. 1) through which the soft water is delivered to the main line (see below);
a drain line configured to drain water drained from the water outlet line to the outside through a drain hole (“outlet line 52, … branches in one direction to the drain 58, …” para. 28 and Fig. 1);
a water outlet valve connecting the water outlet line and the drain line (“drain control valve 56” Fig. 1);
a controller (“controller 78” Fig. 1) configured to control the filter unit (“controller 78 … is in electrical communication with the flow-through capacitor 26,” para. 47 and Fig. 1); and
a pressure acquisition device configured to obtain an internal pressure of the filter line (“pressure sensor 18” Fig. 1),
wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point (see below),
wherein the filter unit alternately performs a removal mode for removing the ionic substances by an electro-deionization through the electrodes (“a treatment mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … removes charged constituents from the stream of water passing there through,” para. 53) and a regeneration mode for regenerating the electrodes (“a regeneration mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … eliminates or discharges the collected charged constituents to regain capacity for further treatment” para. 53), and
wherein the water outlet valve is electrically connected to the control unit (“The controller 78, … is also connected to … drain control valve 56” para. 47) and is configured to:
release the soft water delivered from the filter line into the main line in the removal mode (“In the treatment mode, … the treated water can be routed to the treated water outlet 76” para. 84), or drain the water released from the filter line through the drain line in the regeneration mode (“During regeneration, … water carrying the discharged constituents will be directed to a waste water output or drain 58” para. 97),
wherein the controller operates the filter unit when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure (“When one or more pressure sensors sense that the air or water pressure in the hydropneumatic tank 72 is below a lower set point, the controller 78 opens the control valve 62, turns on forward operation of the pump 17, and turns on the power supply for the flow-through capacitor 26” para. 48, see also para. 89).
The limitation “the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a water-heating device configured to heat water and circulate or release the heated water”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the filter unit receives raw water from a feed source (see para. 19 and Fig. 1). Thus, the filter unit of Averbeck is capable of receiving raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a water-heating device configured to heat water and circulate or release the heated water. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “the filter unit receives raw water from a main line configured to supply the raw water to a consumption site”.
The limitation “through which the soft water is delivered to the main line”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the water outlet opening supplies the soft water to an output (see para. 22 and Fig. 1). Thus, the water outlet opening of Averbeck is capable of supplying the soft water to the main line. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “a water outlet opening through which the soft water is delivered to the main line”.
The limitation “wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point” limits the “main line”. As currently drafted, the “main line” is not part of the claimed apparatus i.e., the “ion removal kit”, but rather an article worked on by the apparatus. The article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line” (see above). Thus, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line integrally connecting the water inlet point and the water outlet point”. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the main line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point”.
Averbeck does not explicitly teach the first pressure being the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted.
However, Averbeck further teaches a lower measured pressure typically indicates greater demand at the consumption site (para. 89).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted as the first pressure in the system of Averbeck. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, to achieve the predictable benefit of not operating the filter unit when there is low or no demand at the consumption site, as taught by Averbeck.
Averbeck does not teach the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case.
However, Rela teaches an ion removal kit (title) comprising a kit case (“outer housing 76” Fig. 1, annotated above), wherein a filter unit (“electrodeionization (EDI) module 54” Fig. 1), a filter line (comprising “conduit 18”, “conduit 26”, “conduit 48”, “conduit 58”, “stream 60” and “stream 62” Fig. 1), a water outlet line (see annotated Fig. 1), and a controller (“a control system …” col. 6 liens 15-28 and “control panel 80 is arranged on a front panel 82 of the housing 76.”, indicating the controller is inside the kit case) are provided inside the kit case and openings are provided in the kit case for external water connections (see e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2 which pass through “housing 76”).
As Averbeck and Rela each teach ion removal kits comprising controllers configured to alternate a filter unit between a removal mode and a regeneration mode, Averbeck and Rela are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Averbeck, such that the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of protecting the kit components from damage. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Averbeck does not explicitly teach a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end located on an outside of the kit case, or a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end located on the outside of the kit case.
However, Rela further teaches connecting pipes comprising smooth pipe terminations (e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2) are attached to the case openings to enable fluid connections to external fluid conduits (“connection to an inlet water supply” col. 10 line 64 through col. 11 line 6).
Furthermore, Millipore teaches that smooth pipe terminations provide the predictable benefit of allowing the detachable and reversable connection of fluid conduits e.g., pipes (Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 2 p. 24 shows the ports have smooth pipe terminations, Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 4 p. 24 shows the smooth pipe terminations form a fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack, Replacing the Q-Gard pack step 144 p. 61 shows the fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack is removable, see also Flow Diagram p. 14).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application when modifying the system of Averbeck to comprise a kit case, to do so such that the system further comprises a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on an outside of the kit case, and a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on the outside of the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this manner to provide the predictable benefit of allowing detachable and reversable connections of the water inlet opening and the water outlet opening to fluid conduits e.g., to the water source and output, as taught by Millipore. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the main line”, as currently drafted, are functional recitations i.e., they define the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Averbeck teaches the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe are capable of being detachably connected to external water conduits (see above). Thus, the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe of modified Averbeck are capable of being detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line and a water outlet point of the main line, respectively. Modified Averbeck therefore renders obvious the limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the main line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the main line”.
The limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction” limits the “main line”, which is not a component of the “ion removal kit” as currently recited i.e., this limitation further limits the article worked on by the apparatus i.e., the “main line”, rather than the apparatus itself i.e., the “ion removal kit”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an apparatus is not limited by the article worked upon, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
As described above, Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line”. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is therefore capable of receiving water from and supplying water to a “main line” having a water outlet point being located downstream of a water inlet point with respect to the flow direction. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) therefore reads on (or renders obvious) the limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction”.
Regarding claim 18, Averbeck teaches an ion removal kit (“capacitive deionization system 10”, Fig. 1) comprising:
a filter unit (“flow-through capacitor 26” Fig. 1), wherein the filter unit receives heating water from an internal line provided inside a boiler configured to provide heating by heating and circulating water (see below), removes at least a part of ionic substances contained in the received raw water by electric force, and releases soft water containing a smaller amount of ionic substances than the heating water (para. 17), and the internal line, together with a heating line configured to provide heating to an object to be heated, forms a circulation line through which the heating water circulates (see below);
a filter line (“inlet line” para. 19, comprising line on which “inlet isolation valve 16” is disposed see Fig. 1, annotated above) and configured to connect the filter unit and a water inlet opening (“feed water inlet 12”) through which the heating water is supplied (“the stream of water flows from the feed water inlet 12 … to the flow-through capacitor 26 … by passing through an inlet line” para. 19 and see Fig. 1);
a water outlet line (“outlet line 52” Fig. 1) configured to connect the filter unit and a water outlet opening (“outlet line 52 … passes through a number of components to ultimately arrive at either a treated water outlet 76 … or a drain 58” para. 22 and Fig. 1) through which the soft water is delivered to the internal line (see below);
a drain line configured to drain water drained from the water outlet line to the outside through a drain hole (“outlet line 52, … branches in one direction to the drain 58, …” para. 28 and Fig. 1);
a water outlet valve connecting the water outlet line and the drain line (“drain control valve 56” Fig. 1);
a controller (“controller 78” Fig. 1) configured to control the filter unit (“controller 78 … is in electrical communication with the flow-through capacitor 26,” para. 47 and Fig. 1); and
a pressure acquisition device configured to obtain an internal pressure of the filter line (“pressure sensor 18” Fig. 1),
wherein the internal line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point (see below),
wherein the filter unit alternately performs a removal mode for removing the ionic substances by an electro-deionization through the electrodes (“a treatment mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … removes charged constituents from the stream of water passing there through,” para. 53) and a regeneration mode for regenerating the electrodes (“a regeneration mode in which the flow-through capacitor 26 … eliminates or discharges the collected charged constituents to regain capacity for further treatment” para. 53), and
wherein the water outlet valve is electrically connected to the control unit (“The controller 78, … is also connected to … drain control valve 56” para. 47) and is configured to:
release the soft water delivered from the filter line into the main line in the removal mode (“In the treatment mode, … the treated water can be routed to the treated water outlet 76” para. 84), or
drain the water released from the filter line through the drain line in the regeneration mode (“During regeneration, … water carrying the discharged constituents will be directed to a waste water output or drain 58” para. 97); and
a pressure acquisition device configured to obtain an internal pressure of the filter line (“pressure sensor 18” Fig. 1),
The limitation “wherein the filter unit receives heating water from an internal line provided inside a boiler configured to provide heating by heating and circulating water”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the filter unit receives water from a feed source (see para. 19 and Fig. 1). Thus, the filter unit of Averbeck is capable of receiving heating water from an internal line provided inside a boiler configured to provide heating by heating and circulating water. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the filter unit receives heating water from an internal line provided inside a boiler configured to provide heating by heating and circulating water”.
The limitation “through which the soft water is delivered to the internal line”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Averbeck teaches the water outlet opening supplies the soft water to an output (see para. 22 and Fig. 1). Thus, the water outlet opening of Averbeck is capable of supplying the soft water to the internal line. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “a water outlet opening through which the soft water is delivered to the internal line”.
The limitation “the internal line, together with a heating line configured to provide heating to an object to be heated, forms a circulation line through which the heating water circulates” limits the “internal line” and “a heating line”. As currently drafted, the “internal line” and “heating line” are not part of the claimed apparatus i.e., the “ion removal kit”, but rather articles worked on by the apparatus. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an apparatus is not limited by the article worked upon, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line” (see above). Thus, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line, together with a heating line configured to provide heating to an object to be heated, [that] forms a circulation line through which the heating water circulates”. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “the internal line, together with a heating line configured to provide heating to an object to be heated, forms a circulation line through which the heating water circulates”.
The limitation “wherein the internal line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point” limits the “internal line”. As currently drafted, the “internal line” is not part of the claimed apparatus i.e., the “ion removal kit”, but rather an article worked on by the apparatus. The article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line” (see above). Thus, the system of Averbeck is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line integrally connecting the water inlet point and the water outlet point”. Averbeck therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the internal line integrally connects the water inlet point and the water outlet point”.
Averbeck does not teach the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case.
However, Rela teaches an ion removal kit (title) comprising a kit case (“outer housing 76” Fig. 1, annotated above), wherein a filter unit (“electrodeionization (EDI) module 54” Fig. 1), a filter line (comprising “conduit 18”, “conduit 26”, “conduit 48”, “conduit 58”, “stream 60” and “stream 62” Fig. 1), a water outlet line (see annotated Fig. 1), and a controller (“a control system …” col. 6 liens 15-28 and “control panel 80 is arranged on a front panel 82 of the housing 76.”, indicating the controller is inside the kit case) are provided inside the kit case and openings are provided in the kit case for external water connections (see e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2 which pass through “housing 76”).
As Averbeck and Rela each teach ion removal kits comprising controllers configured to alternate a filter unit between a removal mode and a regeneration mode, Averbeck and Rela are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Averbeck, such that the ion removal kit comprises a kit case, wherein the filter unit, filter line, water outlet line, and controller are provided inside the kit case, and the water inlet opening, water outlet opening, and drain hole are formed in the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of protecting the kit components from damage. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Averbeck does not explicitly teach a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end located on an outside of the kit case, or a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end located on the outside of the kit case.
However, Rela further teaches connecting pipes comprising smooth pipe terminations (e.g., “inlet connection 78” and “drain 98” Fig. 2) are attached to the case openings to enable fluid connections to external fluid conduits (“connection to an inlet water supply” col. 10 line 64 through col. 11 line 6).
Furthermore, Millipore teaches that smooth pipe terminations provide the predictable benefit of allowing the detachable and reversable connection of fluid conduits e.g., pipes (Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 2 p. 24 shows the ports have smooth pipe terminations, Installing the Q-Gard Pack step 4 p. 24 shows the smooth pipe terminations form a fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack, Replacing the Q-Gard pack step 144 p. 61 shows the fluid connection to the Q-Gard Pack is removable, see also Flow Diagram p. 14).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application when modifying the system of Averbeck to comprise a kit case, to do so such that the system further comprises a water inlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water inlet opening, and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on an outside of the kit case, and a water outlet connecting pipe including one end connected to the water outlet opening and an opposite end comprising a smooth pipe termination located on the outside of the kit case, as taught by Rela. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this manner to provide the predictable benefit of allowing detachable and reversable connections of the water inlet opening and the water outlet opening to fluid conduits e.g., to the water source and output, as taught by Millipore. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the internal line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the internal line”, as currently drafted, are functional recitations i.e., they define the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Averbeck teaches the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe are capable of being detachably connected to external water conduits (see above). Thus, the water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe of modified Averbeck are capable of being detachably connected to a water inlet point of the internal line and a water outlet point of the internal line, respectively. Modified Averbeck therefore renders obvious the limitations “a water inlet pipe … detachably connected to a water inlet point of the internal line” and “a water outlet pipe … detachably connected to a water outlet point of the internal line”.
The limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction” limits the “internal line”, which is not a component of the “ion removal kit” as currently recited i.e., this limitation further limits an article worked on by the apparatus, rather than the apparatus itself. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an apparatus is not limited by the article worked upon, so long as the apparatus is capable of working on the recited article (MPEP § 2115).
As described above, Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line”. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) is therefore capable of receiving water from and supplying water to an “internal line” having a water outlet point being located downstream of a water inlet point with respect to the flow direction. Averbeck (or modified Averbeck) therefore reads on (or renders obvious) the limitation “the water outlet point being located downstream of the water inlet point with respect to the flow direction”.
Claims 6-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbeck in view of Rela and Millipore, as applied to claims 1 or 2, further in view of AWWA (American Water Works Association “Water Resources Planning - Manual of Water Supply Practices, M50 (3rd Edition)” – Ch. 6. Water Quality. (p. 95-106) 2017).
Regarding claim 6, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Averbeck does not teach a TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit or the TDS of water that is to be released through the water outlet opening,
wherein based on the TDS obtained by the TDS sensor, the controller controls the filter unit such that the TDS of the water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS.
However, Averbeck instead teaches a conductivity sensor (“conductivity indicator 22” Fig. 1) configured to obtain the conductivity i.e., the ionic concentration, of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit (“controller 78, … is connected to many of the sensors including the … conductivity indicator 22” para. 47),
wherein based on the conductivity obtained by the conductivity sensor, the controller controls the filter unit such that the conductivity of the water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear conductivity (see para. 87, see also para. 94).
Furthermore, AWWA teaches that total dissolved solids (TDS) includes both inorganic (e.g., ionic) and organic particulate matter (p. 97 para. 7). A TDS sensor thus detects the concentration of both ionic and non-ionic species.
As AWWA teaches methods of measuring water quality, AWWA is analogous art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Averbeck, by substituting for the conductivity sensor a TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit in place of the conductivity sensor configured to obtain the conductivity of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit, wherein based on the TDS obtained by the TDS sensor, the controller controls the filter unit such that the TDS of the water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve the predictable benefit of enabling the controller of Averbeck to adjust the applied current to the filter unit in response to the concentration of non-ionic in addition to ionic species. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using a TDS sensor in place of a conductivity sensor) to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Averbeck does not teach a front TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water delivered to the filter unit,
wherein based on the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller controls the time during which the filter unit performs the removal mode, such that the TDS of water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS.
However, Averbeck instead teaches a front conductivity sensor (“conductivity indicator 22” Fig. 1) configured to obtain the conductivity i.e., the ionic concentration, of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit (“controller 78, … is connected to many of the sensors including the … conductivity indicator 22” para. 47),
wherein based on the conductivity obtained by the front conductivity sensor, the controller controls the time during which the filter unit performs the removal mode, such that the conductivity of the water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear conductivity (see para. 61).
Furthermore, AWWA teaches that total dissolved solids (TDS) includes both inorganic (e.g., ionic) and organic particulate matter (p. 97 para. 7). A TDS sensor thus detects the concentration of both ionic and non-ionic species.
As AWWA teaches methods of measuring water quality, AWWA is analogous art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Averbeck, by substituting for the front conductivity sensor a front TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water that is supplied to the filter unit, wherein based on the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller controls the time during which the filter unit performs the removal mode, such that the TDS of water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve the predictable benefit of enabling the controller of Averbeck to adjust the treatment duration in response to the concentration of non-ionic in addition to ionic species. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using a front TDS sensor in place of a front conductivity sensor) to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Averbeck further teaches with an increase in the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller reduces the time during which the filter unit performs the removal mode (see paras. 59-61, which indicate the system stops applying voltage when it predicts the capacitor will reach its adsorption capacity i.e., the system will run for a shorter duration when more ions need to be removed, as the capacitor will reach its capacity faster, see also para. 91).
Regarding claim 9, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches a constant flow rate valve configured to maintain a flow rate of the raw water flowing through the filter line at a first flow rate by adjusting a degree to which the filter line is open (“calculating the flow rate required to control concentration of the discharged water and using a valve … to control the water flow to achieve that flow rate” para. 105).
Regarding claim 10, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Averbeck does not teach a front TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water delivered to the filter unit,
wherein based on the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller controls a flow rate of the raw water flowing along the filter line, such that the TDS of water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS.
However, Averbeck instead teaches a front conductivity sensor (“conductivity indicator 22” Fig. 1) configured to obtain the conductivity i.e., the ionic concentration, of the raw water delivered to the filter unit (“controller 78, … is connected to many of the sensors including the … conductivity indicator 22” para. 47),
wherein based on the conductivity obtained by the front conductivity sensor, the controller controls a flow rate of the raw water flowing along the filter line, such that the conductivity of water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear conductivity (see paras. 85-87 and Fig. 7).
Furthermore, AWWA teaches that total dissolved solids (TDS) includes both inorganic (e.g., ionic) and organic particulate matter (p. 97 para. 7). A TDS sensor thus detects the concentration of both ionic and non-ionic species.
As AWWA teaches methods of measuring water quality, AWWA is analogous art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Averbeck, by substituting for the front conductivity sensor a front TDS sensor configured to obtain the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the raw water delivered to the filter unit, wherein based on the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller controls a flow rate of the raw water flowing along the filter line, such that the TDS of water that is released through the water outlet opening is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve the predictable benefit of enabling the controller of Averbeck to adjust the flow rate in response to the concentration of non-ionic in addition to ionic species. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using a front TDS sensor in place of a front conductivity sensor) to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Averbeck further teaches with an increase in the TDS obtained by the front TDS sensor, the controller decreases the flow rate of the raw water flowing along the filter line (see paras. 86-87).
Regarding claim 12, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches a flow rate control valve controlled by the controller and configured to adjust the flow rate of the raw water flowing through the filter line by adjusting a degree to which the filter line is open (“The flow rate can be adjusted using one or more valves, can be variable within minimum and maximum limits determined by the module configuration and/or operating conditions” para. 85).
Regarding claim 15, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches a bypass valve (“blend valve 90” Fig. 1) configured to control a flow rate of the raw water bypass line (“blend valve 90, … which can be used to select a flow of water that is permitted to pass through the blend line 88,” para. 24) and a filter flow rate acquisition device (“flow transducer 25” Fig. 1) configured to obtain a flow rate of the raw water delivered to the filter unit (see Fig. 1).
Modified Averbeck does not teach the controller adjusts the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line, by controlling the bypass valve based on the flow rate obtained by the filter flow rate acquisition device such that the total dissolved solids (TDS) of mixed water is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS, wherein the mixed water is formed by mixture of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line and the soft water released from the filter unit and is released through the water outlet opening.
However, Averbeck further teaches that the controller may be configured to adjust the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line by controlling the bypass valve based on the flow rate obtained by the filter flow rate acquisition device (“If … the flow-through capacitor 126 is unable to keep up with demand, then the controller 178 opens the blend valve 190 … temporarily circumventing the flow-through capacitor 126 for particularly high water demand.” para. 49), device such that the conductivity of the mixed water is equal to or less than a reference rear conductivity (“In this instance, the conductivity sensor 168 can monitor the water entering the atmospheric tank to ensure that the water quality does not exceed a [sic] unacceptable level.” para. 49), wherein the mixed water is formed by mixture of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line and the soft water released from the filter unit and is released through the water outlet opening (“blend line 88, 188 which can be used to selectively blend treated water that has passed through the flow-through capacitor 26, 126 with untreated water that has been diverted around the flow-through capacitor 26, 126 for delivery to the treated water outlet 76, 176.” Para. 24).
Furthermore, AWWA teaches that total dissolved solids (TDS) includes both inorganic (e.g., ionic) and organic particulate matter (p. 97 para. 7). A TDS sensor thus detects the concentration of both ionic and non-ionic species.
As AWWA teaches methods of measuring water quality, AWWA is analogous art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Averbeck, by configuring the controller to adjust the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line, by controlling the bypass valve based on the flow rate obtained by the filter flow rate acquisition device such that the total dissolved solids (TDS) of mixed water is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS, wherein the mixed water is formed by mixture of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line and the soft water released from the filter unit and is released through the water outlet opening. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of allowing water to be dispensed even during high demand situations, as taught by Averbeck, and controlling the quality of the water with respect to both ionic and non-ionic contaminants, as taught by AWWA.
Regarding claim 16, modified Averbeck teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above.
Averbeck further teaches a bypass valve (“blend valve 90” Fig. 1) configured to control a flow rate of the raw water bypass line (“blend valve 90, … which can be used to select a flow of water that is permitted to pass through the blend line 88,” para. 24).
Modified Averbeck does not teach a rear TDS sensor configured to obtain the TDS of mixed water that is formed by mixture of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line and the soft water released from the filter unit and that is to be released through the water outlet opening, wherein the controller adjusts the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line, by controlling the bypass valve based on the TDS obtained by the rear TDS sensor such that the TDS obtained by the rear TDS sensor is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS.
However, Averbeck further teaches a rear conductivity sensor (“conductivity indicator 68” Fig. 1), that is configured to obtain the conductivity of mixed water that is formed by a mixture of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line and the soft water released from the filter unit and that is to be released through the water outlet opening (see Fig. 1), wherein the controller may be configured to adjust the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line by controlling the bypass valve (“the controller 178 opens the blend valve 190” para. 49) based on the conductivity obtained by the rear conductivity sensor such that the conductivity obtained by the rear conductivity sensor is equal to or less than a reference rear conductivity (“In this instance, the conductivity sensor 168 can monitor the water entering the atmospheric tank to ensure that the water quality does not exceed a [sic] unacceptable level.” para. 49).
Furthermore, AWWA teaches that total dissolved solids (TDS) includes both inorganic (e.g., ionic) and organic particulate matter (p. 97 para. 7). A TDS sensor thus detects the concentration of both ionic and non-ionic species.
As AWWA teaches methods of measuring water quality, AWWA is analogous art. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Averbeck, by substituting a rear TDS sensor in place of the rear conductivity sensor, and configuring the controller to adjust the flow rate of the raw water bypassed through the bypass line by controlling the bypass valve based on the TDS obtained by the rear TDS sensor such that the TDS obtained by the rear TDS sensor is equal to or less than a reference rear TDS. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of controlling the quality of the water with respect to both ionic and non-ionic contaminants, as taught by AWWA. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p.10, filed 08/18/2025, regarding the objections to the claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p.10, filed 08/18/2025, regarding the rejections of claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 10-13, filed 08/18/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 11-12 that the Averbeck does not reasonably disclose or render obvious the limitation “wherein the controller operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure” as recited in amended claims 1 and 17. Specifically, applicant argues that the controller of Averbeck operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode based on the internal pressure of the hydropneumatic storage tank, not the filter line, and that the controller is not configured to compare the internal pressure to a static reference pressure.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not Averbeck teaches “wherein the controller operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure, the first pressure being the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted”, as recited in claim 1.
As described in the rejection of claim 1, Averbeck explicitly teaches the controller operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure. Specifically, Averbeck explicitly teaches:
a) the controller of Averbeck is configured to measure the pressure using pressure sensor 18, which is located on the filter line before the filter unit (see annotated Fig. 1 and para. 19); and
b) the controller of Averbeck is configured to compare the pressure to a static pressure i.e., a set point (para. 48).
Applicant’s assertions are thus factually incorrect. As the factual basis for Applicant’s argument are incorrect, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 12 that Averbeck does not reasonably disclose or render obvious the limitation “the first pressure being the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted” as recited in claims 1 and 17. Specifically, Applicant argues that the static pressure used in Averbeck is that associated with the pressure of the hydropneumatic storage tank 72, which does not reasonably correspond to “the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted”.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not Averbeck renders reasonably discloses or renders obvious the limitation “the first pressure being the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of the raw water to the consumption site is interrupted”. Specifically, whether the internal pressure of the filter line corresponding to a pressure in the hydropneumatic storage tank 72 reasonably corresponds to “the internal pressure of the filter line when the supply of raw water to the consumption site is interrupted” as claimed.
As described in the rejections of claims 1 and 17, the hydropneumatic storage tank 72 of Averbeck holds the water purified by the filter unit (see Fig. 1). Averbeck further teaches that the control unit is configured to operate the unit in response to an internal pressure of the filter line (para. 47 and Fig. 1) corresponding to reduced pressure detected in the storage tank (para. 48), which is associated with an increased demand for water (para. 89). I.e., the control unit of Averbeck is configured to operate the filter unit only when there is demand at the consumption site, as determined by the control unit by comparing the pressure in the internal filter line to a reference value.
Thus, while Averbeck does not explicitly disclose the first pressure used by the controller is that associated with an interruption of raw water supply to the consumption site i.e., the pressure associated with no demand, Averbeck does disclose the first pressure used by the control unit is that associated with an unspecified lower demand.
As Averbeck teaches that the controller is configured to use a first pressure associated with an unspecified lower demand for water at the consumption site as the reference value, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select a first pressure associated with no demand for water at the consumption site as the reference value, because a pressure associated with no demand is within the range taught by Averbeck (see MPEP 2144.05).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 12-13 that Averbeck does not teach the controller infers water usage based on the measurement of the internal pressure of the filter line, and then uses this inferred water usage to trigger the removal of contaminants from the raw water in accordance with this demand, but rather discloses a simpler control system that only provides “simple ON/OFF control for regulating the pressure of a hydropneumatic storage tank (72)”.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the control unit controls the production of water based on an inferred demand) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, as currently drafted, the limitation “wherein the controller operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure” requires the controller to turn on i.e., operate, the filter unit when the measured “internal pressure” is lower than “a first pressure”. Thus, the limitation in question, as currently drafted, requires no more than a simple ON/OFF operation as currently drafted, which, as acknowledged by Applicant, is taught by Averbeck.
Averbeck thus clearly reads on the limitation “wherein the controller operates the filter unit to perform the removal mode when the internal pressure of the filter line obtained by the pressure acquisition device is lower than a first pressure”.
Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights