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 Claims
Claims 14-18, 21-22 and 24 are currently pending
Claims 2, 9-10, 12, 19-20, 23 and 34-52 are currently canceled
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13 and 25-33 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 14-18, 21-22 and 24 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/10/2023, 06/05/2024, 11/20/2024, 06/18/2025 and 12/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 14-18, 21-22 and 24 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract needs to be on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 23 states “configured energize” and instead should state “configured to energize” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 32 states “pressure sensor measuring” and instead should state “pressure sensor subsystem measuring” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “during operation” and instead should state “during the operation” for further clarity. ALSO, line 5 states “during reverse recirculation” and instead should state “during the reverse circulation” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “for recirculation…for operation” and instead should state “for the recirculation…for the operation” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system” and instead should state “The water filtration system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first outlet…configured to receive filtered water,” on lines 3-4 of claim 14, “the regenerative media filter vessel housing a tube sheet comprising a plurality of tube elements configured to have particulate media” on lines 4-6 of claim 14, “a pressure sensor subsystem comprising an inlet pressure sensor and an outlet pressure sensor, configured to measure” on lines 7-8 of claim 14, “an end use valve positioned on the filtrate line and configured to allow passage” on line 15 of claim 14, “a feed valve positioned on the feed line and configured to allow passage” on line 17 of claim 14, “at least one recirculation valve positioned on the recirculation line and configured to allow passage” on lines 19-20 of claim 14, “at least one pump configured to direct the water” on line 21 of claim 14, “the controller configured energize” on line 23 of claim 14, “wherein the controller is further configured to:” on line 1 of claim 15, “wherein the controller is further configured to:” on line 1 of claim 16, “wherein the controller is configured to direct the” on line 1 of claim 17, “wherein the controller is electrically connectable to a cloud-based memory storage configured to process” on lines 1-2 of claim 21, “wherein the cloud-based memory storage is configured to inform a user” on lines 1-2 of claim 22, and “wherein the controller is operably connected to a drain valve and configured to open” on lines 1-2 of claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-18, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an end use valve positioned on the filtrate line and configured to allow” on line 15. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to allow, the end use valve or the filtrate line? FURTHERMORE, claim 14 recites the limitation “a feed valve positioned on the feed line and configured to allow” on line 17. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to allow, the feed valve or the feed line? ALSO, claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one recirculation valve positioned on the recirculation line and configured to allow” on lines 19-20. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to allow, the at least one recirculation valve or the recirculation line? Claims 15-18, 21-22 and 24 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 14.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "wherein the controller is operably connected to a drain valve and configured to open” on lines 1-2. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to open, the controller or the drain valve?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-18, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warning et al. (U.S. 4,560,483) (hereinafter “Warning”) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 6,171,480 B1) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Warning teaches a water filtration system (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 1 lines 9-15) (see col. 4 lines 27-40), comprising:
a regenerative media filter vessel having an inlet fluidly connectable to a feed source comprising water to be filtered (see FIG. 4 further illustrating an entire system including a first filter vessel 26, and/or a second filter vessel 32) (see FIG. 1 further illustrates the filter vessel 120 in detail further containing a plurality of filter elements 128) (see col. 8 lines 18-60), a first outlet fluidly connectable to an end use configured to receive filtered water, and a second outlet fluidly connectable to a drain (see col. 5 lines 47-63) (see col. 8 lines 18-60), the regenerative media filter vessel housing a tube sheet comprising a plurality of tube elements configured to have particulate media on a surface thereof during operation thereof (see col. 8 lines 18-60);
a pressure sensor subsystem comprising an inlet pressure sensor and an outlet pressure sensor (see FIG. 4, a differential pressure switch 34), configured to measure a differential pressure across the regenerative media filter vessel (see col. 6 lines 6-16);
a filtrate line having an inlet fluidly connected to the first outlet of the regenerative media filter vessel and an outlet fluidly connectable to the end use (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines of the vessel);
a feed line having an inlet fluidly connectable to the feed source and an outlet fluidly connected to the inlet of the regenerative media filter vessel (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines of the vessel);
a recirculation line having an inlet and an outlet fluidly connected to the regenerative media filter vessel (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple inlet and outlet lines of the vessel);
an end use valve positioned on the filtrate line and configured to allow passage of the filtered water to the end use (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple valves) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple valves of the vessel);
a feed valve positioned on the feed line and configured to allow passage of the water to the regenerative media filter vessel (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple valves) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple valves of the vessel);
at least one recirculation valve positioned on the recirculation line and configured to allow passage of at least one of the water and the filtered water through the recirculation line (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (see col. 5 lines 47-63 further discussing multiple valves) (see col. 8 lines 18-60 further discussing multiple valves of the vessel);
at least one pump configured to direct the water through the water filtration system (see FIG. 4, a pumps 14 and 20) (see col. 5 lines 47-63); and
a control monitor (see FIG. 4, a level control monitor 44) operably connected to the pressure sensor subsystem, the end use valve, the feed valve, and the at least one recirculation valve (see col. 6 lines 43-62):
direct the water through the regenerative media filter vessel in a first direction for operation in a filtration mode for a first period of time until the pressure sensor subsystem measures the differential pressure in a first predetermined differential pressure range (see col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range), and direct the filtered water through the regenerative media filter vessel in a second direction, opposite the first direction, for reverse recirculation in a cleaning mode responsive to the pressure sensor subsystem measuring the differential pressure in the first predetermined differential pressure range for a second period of time (see col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range).
Although Warning teaches a level control monitor and also teaches switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode, one may broadly interpret that Warning does not explicitly teach a controller configured and capable of performing the following functions such as operating the pressure subsystem, valves and the pump, as recited in amended, independent claim 14.
Lee further teaches a water filtration system including a computerized control system including processors capable and configured to control multiple structural components along with performing algorithms and processes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 14, wherein Warning further teaches:
open the end use valve and the feed valve and close the at least one recirculation valve during operation in the filtration mode (see Warning col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range), and
close the end use valve and the feed valve and open the at least one recirculation valve during reverse recirculation in the cleaning mode (see Warning col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range).
Lee further teaches a water filtration system including a computerized control system including processors capable and configured to control multiple structural components along with performing algorithms and processes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 14, wherein Warning further teaches:
direct the water through the regenerative media filter vessel in the first direction for recirculation in a pre-filtering mode (see Warning col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range), and
close the end use valve and the feed valve and open the at least one recirculation valve during the pre-filtration mode (see Warning col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range).
Lee further teaches a water filtration system including a computerized control system including processors capable and configured to control multiple structural components along with performing algorithms and processes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 16, wherein Warning further teaches configured to direct the water for recirculation in the pre-filtration mode prior to directing the water for operation in the filtration mode (see Warning col. 6 further describing switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode along with opening and closing valves, and based on a differential pressure range).
Lee further teaches a water filtration system including a computerized control system including processors capable and configured to control multiple structural components along with performing algorithms and processes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 14, wherein Warning further teaches the first predetermined differential pressure range is between about 10 psi and about 15 psi, and wherein the second predetermined differential pressure range is between about 5 psi and about 10 psi (see Warning FIG. 4, a differential pressure switch 34) (see Warning col. 6 lines 6-16).
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 14, wherein Lee further teaches the controller is electrically connectable to a cloud-based memory storage configured to process and store data associated with historic values of the measured differential pressure (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 22:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 21, wherein Lee further teaches the cloud-based memory storage is configured to inform a user or service provider of a status of the water filtration system (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Regarding Claim 24:
The combination of Warning in view of Lee teaches the water filtration system of claim 14, wherein Lee further teaches the controller is operably connected to a drain valve and configured to open the drain valve responsive to the first period of time trending downward (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Warning and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water filtration system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water filtration system of Warning to further include a controller, as taught by Lee, capable and configured to operate and control multiple structural components including valves, pump, sensors, and to further control switching between a filtration mode and a cleaning mode for optimization purposes (see Lee col. 5 lines 56-67) (see Lee col. 7 line 55 through col. 8 line 49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773