DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "based on the total water flow rate and a first proportional coefficient of the chlorine source to the total water flow rate, calculating a chlorine feed rate of the chlorine source" (Claim 1), "based on the total water flow rate and a second proportional coefficient of the ammonium source to the total water flow rate, calculating an ammonium feed rate of the ammonium source" (claim 1), "calculating a chlorine feed rate of a chlorine source" (Claim 10), "calculating an ammonium feed rate of a ammonium source" (claim 10), “controlling the flow rate of the chlorine source of the chlorine pump based on the calculated chlorine feed rate” (Claim 10). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements is routine and conventional in the art of water disinfection methods. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination they do not add significantly more to the exception.
In claim 1, the limitations “measuring a total water flow rate of the water stream”, “monitoring a free chlorine amount in the water stream by a free chlorine sensor”, and “reducing the chlorine feed rate by the free chlorine amount in the water stream” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05.
In claim 1, the limitations “injecting a chlorine source and an ammonium source into the water stream”, “injecting the chlorine source into the water stream based on the chlorine feed rate”, and “injecting the ammonium source into the water stream based on the ammonium feed rate” have not been integrated into a particular practical application. These limitations are stated with a high degree of generality and are generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In claim 10, the limitations “measuring a total water flow rate from a main flow measuring device that is connected to the water stream”, “monitoring a free chlorine amount in the water stream by a free chlorine sensor that is connected to the water stream”, “reducing the chlorine feed rate by the free chlorine amount in the water stream” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05.
In claim 10, the limitations “generating monochloramine in a water system”, “utilizing a chlorine pump being connected to the water stream to inject the chlorine source into the water stream…device”, and “utilizing an ammonia pump being connected to the water stream to inject the ammonium source into the water stream…device”, are directed towards routine and conventional pieces and steps of water disinfection systems which does not amount of significantly more. The claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2008/0006586 by Axtell (Axtell) in view of U.S Publication 2015/0329391 by Garusi (Garusi).
With respect to claims 1-2, 8, 10, and 15, Axtell discloses in paragraphs 0009, 0027, figure 1, and claim 1, a method for generating monochloramine in a water stream by injecting a chlorine source and an ammonium source into the water stream, the method comprising the steps of: measuring the total water flow rate of the water stream (0027); based on the total water flow rate, calculating a chlorine feed rate of the chlorine source required to generate monochloramine at a predetermined target concentration in the water stream; based on the total water flow rate, calculating an ammonium feed rate of the ammonium source required to generate monochloramine at the predetermined target concentration in the water stream; injecting the chlorine source into the water stream based on the chlorine feed rate; and injecting the ammonium source into the water stream based on the ammonium feed rate (0035). The metering approach involves the adjustment of two variable chemical pump controls, which must be adjusted proportionally to the flow of potable water in the main line. The monochloramine level is tested sufficiently downstream of the chemical addition points to allow for mixing of the ammonia and chlorine. Adjustments to the chemical metering devices may be made automatically to maintain the nitrogen to chlorine feed ratio.
Axtell discloses maintaining the chlorine feed rate and the ammonium feed rate based on a predetermined ratio; generating monochloramine at a predetermined target concentration (0035).
Axtell does not disclose monitoring a free chlorine amount in the water stream by a free chlorine sensor; and limiting a maximum chlorine feed rate by the free chlorine sensor.
Garusi discloses (0080-0092) a similar method producing monochloramine directly in hot water. The control and addition system 11 comprises an electronic control system and a monochloramine reagent feed system. The equipment may be provided with systems to measure redox potential and free chlorine concentration. An ammonium measurement system 12 measures the free ammonium in the main circuit 2 and is electrically connected to the electronic control system of the control and addition system 11. [0081] redox sensors (ORP=oxidation reduction potential), [0082] amperometric probes to detect the concentration of total chlorine, [0083] colorimetric probes to detect the concentration of total chlorine, [0084] amperometric probes to detect the concentration of free chlorine (or excess chlorine), [0085] colorimetric probes to detect the concentration of free chlorine (or excess chlorine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Axtell reference and use the redox potential and free/total chlorine/ammonia sensors in the feedback loop, since Garusi discloses it would help provide increased control to the production of monochloramine.
Axtell teaches based on the total water flow rate and a first proportional coefficient of the chlorine source to the total water flow rate ([0035]); Axtell teaches based on a total water flow rate and a second proportional coefficient of the ammonium source to the total water flow rate ([0035]).
With respect to claims 3-5, 13, and 14, Axtell does not disclose monitoring a free chlorine amount in the water stream by a free chlorine sensor; and limiting a maximum chlorine feed rate by the free chlorine sensor.
Garusi discloses (0080-0092) a similar method producing monochloramine directly in hot water. The control and addition system 11 comprises an electronic control system and a monochloramine reagent feed system. The equipment may be provided with systems to measure redox potential and free chlorine concentration. An ammonium measurement system 12 measures the free ammonium in the main circuit 2 and is electrically connected to the electronic control system of the control and addition system 11. [0081] redox sensors (ORP=oxidation reduction potential), [0082] amperometric probes to detect the concentration of total chlorine, [0083] colorimetric probes to detect the concentration of total chlorine, [0084] amperometric probes to detect the concentration of free chlorine (or excess chlorine), [0085] colorimetric probes to detect the concentration of free chlorine (or excess chlorine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Axtell reference and use the redox potential and free/total chlorine/ammonia sensors in the feedback loop, since Garusi discloses it would help provide increased control to the production of monochloramine.
With respect to claim 9, Axtell discloses (0005) the species of chloramine is produced when combining ammonia and chlorine.
The reference is silent on the predetermined stoichiometric ratio being a stoichiometric ratio of chlorine to ammonium equals to 1:1.
Since it is disclosed that the chlorine an ammonia needs to be monitored to produce the desired monochloramine, and the reference discloses the adjustments, finding the ratio is a result effective variable. The adjustment of ratio would provide for adjustment in the ratio of the nitrogen present.
Therefore increased ammonia would provide increased nitrogen present making the variable result effective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Axtell reference and use a stoichiometric ratio of chlorine to ammonium equal to 1:1, since ratios below 5:1 are known to produce the desired product, it would be within the routine skill of one in the art having ordinary skill to find or discover the optimum or workable ratio.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2008/0006586 by Axtell (Axtell) in view of U.S Publication 2015/0329391 by Garusi (Garusi), as noted above, further in view of U.S. Patent 3760829 by Schuk (Schuk).
With respect to claim 11, modified Axtell does not disclose any of the flow measuring devices utilizes an inline magnetic flow meter.
Schuk discloses an automatic control system for the addition of chlorine based on ammonia using a magnetic flow meter to provide continuous measurements of process flow (Column 7 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Axtell reference and use the magnet flow meter, since Schuk discloses the known meter would provide the desired process flow measurements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2008/0006586 by Axtell (Axtell) in view of U.S Publication 2015/0329391 by Garusi (Garusi), as noted above, further in view of U.S. Publication 2016/0029639 by DiMascio (DiMascio).
With respect to claim 12, modified Axtell does not disclose any of the flow measuring devices utilizes a pressure transducer, which calculates the flow rate by analyzing a changing pressure during a discharge stroke.
DiMascio discloses the use of a pressure transducer to measure such things as flow rate flows including chlorine and ammonia.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Axtell reference and use the pressure transducer to measure flow meter, since DiMascio discloses the known meter would provide the desired process flow measurements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18645237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed towards the same method with same required steps.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the 112 rejection; the Examiner notes this rejection has been removed in light of the amendments and arguments.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection; the office action fails to identify which grouping of subject matter the claims allegedly belong; the claims integrate the exception into a practical application because they recite improvements to water treatment technologies and recite effective transformation of precursor chemicals to monochloramine in the water system; the specification provides that water usually travels a very long distance and the monochloramine is depleted; specification provides avoid need for a manager; claims 1 and 10 effect a transformation of chlorine and ammonium into monochloramine; the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
As noted above: Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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., water travels a long distance and monochloramine is depleted; avoid need for a manager) 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).
The claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the 103 rejection; the claims doe not require detecting ammonia level or monochloramine level and avoid the need for conducting manual chemical testing; Axtell fails to disclose measurement of total water flow rate and calculation of precursor chemical rates based on the measured total water flow rate and a proportional coefficient; Garusi does not disclose measuring the total water flow rate of a water stream; the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
The claims utilize the open transitional phrase “comprising” and do not exclude manual chemical testing. See MPEP 2111.03.
As noted above: Axtell teaches based on the total water flow rate and a first proportional coefficient of the chlorine source to the total water flow rate ([0035]); Axtell teaches based on a total water flow rate and a second proportional coefficient of the ammonium source to the total water flow rate ([0035]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Axtell teaches limitations regarding chlorine feed rate and generation of monochloramine at a predetermined target concentration. Axtell teaches pumping and flow meters.
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 KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-272-0579. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777