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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/11/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 remain pending in the application.
The amendment under 37 CFR 1.111 filed 06/11/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon the rejection as set forth in the last Office action because: the language utilized in the amendment is for intended use. the apparatus does not change with the ne amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al. (US 2015/0027890 A1) in view of Voutchkov (US 2003/0121856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jha teaches a water conditioning system (see Fig 1, title, abstract),that (Page 4) including an electrodialysis reversal water purifier (Electrochemical Device 19, maybe be "electrodialysis reversal (EDR)" "electrochemical water treatment device “refers to any number of electrochemical water treatment devices, non-limiting examples including...electrodialysis devices" [0031,0039], electrodialysis devices are notoriously well-known to include electrode A and electrode B between an EDR film stack and two flow paths, note [0104] 'anode and cathode'); Jha teaches the ECD includes first source water inlet (lines 17/13), a second source water inlet (lines 11/12/18), pumps are provided as needed (see [0059], "the treatment systems disclosed here further comprise one or more pumps. A variety of pumps for pumping and/or recirculating fluid may be used in conjunction with the treatment system. Pumps may be internal and/or external to one or more of the components of the treatment system, and/or may be otherwise integrated with the treatment system. Non-limiting examples of pumps include electrical pumps, air driven pumps, and hydraulic pumps. The pump may be driven by a power source that can be any conventional power source, for example, gasoline driven motors, diesel driven motors, solar-powered motors, electric motors, and any combination thereof"), valves are provided as needed (see [0060], "the methods and systems disclosed here further comprise one or more valves. Non-limiting examples of valves suitable for control according to one or more embodiments include, but are not limited to, check valves, gate valves, bypass valves, solenoid valves, other types of hydraulic valves, other types of pneumatic valves, relief valves, and any combination thereof. Suitable valves include one-way and/or multi-way valves. In certain non-limiting embodiments, the valve can be a pilot valve, a rotary valve, a ball valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a flutter valve, a swing check valve, a clapper valve, a stopper-check valve, a lift-check valve, and any combination thereof. The valves may be manually actuated (for example, by an operator) and/or hydraulically, pneumatically, solenoid, or otherwise actuated, including control actuated by a process controller or control system. The valves may be an on/off type of valve, or may be a proportional type of valve"), a clean water outlet (via lines 20/21/22/23, [0085]), a wastewater outlet (via line 14/15 to reject valve 4), a conductivity probe is specifically provided in line 17 (see Fig 1, "Conduit 17 can further comprise one or more sensors, for example, ionic conductivity probe 29b", [0095]) conductivity sensors provided as needed (see [0080], "treatment system 40 may also comprise a probe or sensor, for example, a water property sensor, capable of measuring at least one physical property in treatment system 40. For example, the sensor can be a device that measures water conductivity, pH, temperature, pressure, composition, and/or flow rates. The probe or sensor can be installed or positioned within treatment system 40 to measure a particularly preferred water property. For example, a probe or sensor 29c, can be a water pressure sensor installed in or otherwise placed in fluid communication with storage system 24 so that it measures the pressure of the water. This can provide an indication of the quality of water available for product stream 23. In another embodiment, the probe or sensor can comprise a series or a set of sensors in various configurations or arrangements in treatment system 40. The set of sensors can be constructed, arranged, and connected to a controller so that the controller can monitor, intermittently or continuously, the quality of water in, for example, storage system 24. This arrangement allows the performance of treatment system 40 to be further optimized") and a controller (see [0064-0068]), wherein the EDR film stack has first inlet port 13 in line with first source water inlet 17 and conductivity probe 29b, second inlet port 18 in line with second source water inlet 11, first outlet port 20 in line with clean water outlet 23, and second outlet port 14 in line with concentrate wastewater reject valve 4 (see Fig 1 [0080-0095]), electrode A and electrode B are opposite polarities and disposed at two sides of the EDR film stack (as noted above, see [0104], as ECD 19 anode and cathode polarities are opposite, Electrochemical Device 19, maybe be "electrodialysis reversal (EDR)" "electrochemical water treatment device" refers to any number of electrochemical water treatment devices, non-limiting examples including...electrodialysis devices" [0031,0039], electrodialysis devices are notoriously well known to include electrode A and electrode B between an EDR film stack and two flow paths, note [0104] 'anode and cathode').
While Jha also teaches one or more one-way valves (paragraph 0060) and one or more pressure sensors (paragraph 0061), Jha does not explicitly teach the claimed arrangement. However, the courts have held that the rearrangement of parts within a device is obvious when the arrangement does not specifically modify the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). See MPEP §2144.04.
The courts have also held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B.
While Jha teaches pumps (paragraph 0059), Jha does not each a variable speed pump.
However, Voutchkov teaches electrodialysis (paragraph 0003), and system comprising pressure sensors (paragraph 0011) as well as variable speed pumps.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Jha et.al. and Voutchkov et.al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing both manual and automatic control of the system as explicitly taught by Voutchkov (paragraph 0029).
As to the claim limitations wherein when the clean water outlet is opened to discharge clean water and the second pressure sensor detects that pressure of the clean water that is to be discharged drops, the second pressure sensor sends a signal to the control system module and the control system module increase a rotational speed of the variable speed pump. This is intended use of the apparatus. Specifically this is emphasized as “when” something happens in the claim language. As the structure of the apparatus is disclosed as per Jha and Voutchkov, the claim limitations of a pressure balancing system are met (see MPEP 2114 I and II).
As regards to claim 2, Jha et. Al. teaches that in certain non-limiting embodiments, the valve 312 may be a solenoid valve. The solenoid valve may be a one way or multi-way valve, including three-way and four-way valves. The solenoid valve may be an on/off type of valve, a proportional type of valve, and any combination thereof. (Paragraph 0083). They continue to teach of the various ways that these valves can be connected like to outlet, etc.
As stated above, the courts have held that the rearrangement of parts within a device is obvious when the arrangement does not specifically modify the operation of the device. Furthermore, since claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 which is obvious, claim 2 is also obvious in view of Jha et al. (US 2015/0027890 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants argues that Jha does not specifically disclose that the sensors may 8 be used to detect the water pressure in the first to fourth conduits (18, 20, 13, 19), and also does not disclose how the values detected by the sensors are used to control the water treatment system, not to mention adjusting the control on the water treatment system according to the water pressure detected by the sensors. Jha does not disclose or suggest why the water pressure between the second conduit (20) and the fourth conduit (14) should be balanced, nor how to balance the water pressure between the second conduit (20) and the fourth conduit (14), is directed at intended use of the apparatus not the structure of the system as claimed by the applicant.
In response to applicant's argument that Jha does not specifically disclose that the sensors may be used to detect the water pressure in the first to fourth conduits (18, 20, 13, 19), and also does not disclose how the values detected by the sensors are used to control the water treatment system, not to mention adjusting the control on the water treatment system according to the water pressure detected by the sensors. Jha does not disclose or suggest why the water pressure between the second conduit (20) and the fourth conduit (14) should be balanced, nor how to balance the water pressure between the second conduit (20) and the fourth conduit (14), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the ordinally artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in having an added advantage of allowing both automatic and manual control of the system (Voutchkov [0029]).
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABELLINE K FIONAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm with every other Friday off.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/ABELLINE KATUSIIME FIONAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759