DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE with amendments and remarks filed 04/20/2026 in which claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended, claims 14 has been newly added and claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending and ready for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,882,773 B1 (hereinafter “Pyle”) in view of US 4,787,980 A (hereinafter “Ackermann”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10 Pyle discloses a pure water manufacturing management system and method (Figs. 1a,1B, C13/L53-C14/L30, C17/L21-C18/L25) comprising:
a manufacturing apparatus of pure water (RO membrane array 24);
a water storage tank (T3) that stores the pure water which is manufactured;
a level meter (LVL2) that measures a water level of the water storage tank;
an analysis device (TDS1) that inspects a water quality on an inlet side and a separate analysis device (TDS2) that inspects a water quality on an outlet side of the manufacturing apparatus;
a first valve (V23) that is provided on a first pipe connected to an outlet side of the manufacturing apparatus and controls an amount of the pure water supplied to the water storage tank;
a second pipe that branches from the first pipe and is connected to the analysis device (the second pipe that the TDS meter is on branches to the first pipe that V23 is on and a discharge pipe with V4);
third valve v21 that is provided on a third pipe connected to the inlet side of the manufacturing apparatus and controls an amount of water supplied to the manufacturing apparatus;
the method comprising:
by a control device (control system),
when the level in tank T3 is low (i.e. a predetermined value), the control system opens V21 to supply water to the RO subsystem, before water enters the RO filters it is measured by the TDS1 meter and once water exits the RO filters it is measured by the TDS2 meter (i.e. performing a water quality inspection of the water supplied through the third pipe and the pure water supplied through the second pipe), and when the TDS range is correct V23 is opened to supply the tank T3 (i.e. starting a supply of the pure water to the water storage tank from the manufacturing apparatus by opening the first valve when the water quality is determined to be appropriate), and when the TDS is not correct V23 is closed and V24 is opened (C13/L53-C14/L30, C17/L21-C18/L25),
the monitoring of the TDs and control of valves V23 and V24 is done continuously as water is flowing through them, i.e. so that TDs can be controlled in the tank T3 (C13/L53-C14/L30, C17/L21-C18/L25), (i.e. controlling the analysis device to repeatedly perform a water quality inspection, while supply of the pure water from the manufacturing apparatus to the water storage tank is performed; opening the first valve when a water quality of the pure water meets a predetermined reference as a result of the water quality inspection; and closing the first valve when the water quality of the pure water does not meet the predetermined reference as a result of the water quality inspection), as claimed.
Pyle does not disclose a fourth pipe that branches from the third pipe and is connected to a single shared analysis device that also inspects the pure water supplied by the second pipe.
However Ackermann discloses a system and method for monitoring an ultra pure water manufacturing system, comprising a hydraulic multiplex unit for receiving continuously one or more samples of liquid from a liquid purification system of distribution system and redirecting such sample or samples randomly or in sequence to one or more analytical instruments (Abstract), which may be operated on a continuous desired cycle by use of a suitable programmed computer control system
where fluid conduits/pipes are provided from various locations in the pure water manufacturing system (i.e. after each of the different purification processes of the system) to fluidly connect each to the single multiplex unit which comprises a series of analyzers for inspecting the water quality including resistivity, silica, particle and TOC (Fig. 3, C3/L28-59, C5/L7-49), where the silica analyzer measures a silica concentration of water and is thus a silica concentration meter as claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Pyle by using pipes to divert fluid samples from locations where water quality is to be measured to a shared hydraulic multiplex unit comprising a series of analyzers for inspecting the water quality including resistivity, silica, particle and TOC as disclosed by Ackermann in order to use one set of sensors/analyzers to continuously inspect the water quality from a plurality of locations; thus reducing the number of sensors needed and allowing continuous monitoring and control of the system.
This would result in a fourth pipe that branches from the third pipe (i.e. upstream of the Ro system where TDS1 is) and is connected to the analysis device, wherein the analysis device performs the water quality inspection of water supplied by the fourth pipe as well as the second pipe, wherein the analysis device includes a silica concentration meter configured to measure a silica concentration of water, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, wherein Pyle is not explicit as to whether V23 or V24 is opened when V21 is initially opened, but it is disclosed that one of V23 or V24 must always be open when V21 is open because the membranes are not designed to handle backpressure, though it is clear that the valve opened is based on the TDS meter reading (Pyle C14/L19-30, C17/L21-30), and thus it would appear that either one of V23 or V24 may be open and the other closed based on the TDS reading of the water instantly in the pipe at time of startup, i.e. it is seen as obvious to have the starting up condition be either one of V23 or V24 open and the other closed once V21 is opened, and thus the claimed condition (wherein the control device closes the first valve V23, opens the third valve V21, and activates the analysis device to start the water quality inspection of the pure water flowing in through the second pipe, when the manufacturing apparatus starts the supply of the pure water to the water storage tank, and opens the first valve V23 when the water quality of the pure water meets the predetermined reference as a result of the water quality inspection, i.e. where V23 is closed at start up) is seen as obvious choice of two finite options.
Regarding Claim 3 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second valve V24 that is provided on a discharge pipe (to discharge tank T5) connected to the outlet side of the manufacturing apparatus; Pyle Fig. 1A, 1B.
Pyle is not explicit as to whether V23 or V24 is opened when V21 is initially opened, but it is disclosed that one of V23 or V24 must always be open when V21 is open because the membranes are not designed to handle backpressure, though it is clear that the valve opened is based on the TDS meter reading (Pyle C14/L19-30, C17/L21-30), and thus it would appear that either one of V23 or V24 may be open and the other closed based on the TDS reading of the water instantly in the pipe at time of startup, i.e. it is seen as obvious to have the starting up condition be either one of V23 or V24 open and the other closed once V21 is opened, and thus the claimed condition (wherein the control device opens the third valve V21 and opens the second valve V24 when the manufacturing apparatus starts the supply of the pure water to the water storage tank, and thereafter starts the water quality inspection by the analysis device, , i.e. where V24 is open at start up) is seen as obvious choice of two finite options.
Closing the second valve after a predetermined time elapses before then doing the water quality inspection (i.e. flushing the system to discharge on startup) is not disclosed. However, it would have been obvious to flush the system to discharge on startup, regardless of the TDS reading, when starting the system up after cleaning or otherwise when there is known bad water in the system in order to not send it to the good water tank T3.
Regarding Claim 4 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 2, but does not specifically disclose wherein the control device controls an opening degree of the third valve such that a flow rate of water supplied from the third pipe to the manufacturing apparatus becomes a predetermined flow rate.
However, it is disclosed that other provided vales are designed to provide flow control by controlling the opening amount of the vales (Pyle C5/L63-67). And while the specific valve V21 is not disclosed to be controlled in this way, it would have been obvious to provide the valve V21 the ability to control its opening degree in order to provide further and enhanced control of fluid flows throughout the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device starts manufacture of the pure water when a water level of the water storage tank measured by using a level meter becomes equal to or lower than a predetermined first threshold value, and closes the first valve when the water level becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined second threshold value; (Pyle C13/L53-C14/L3).
Regarding Claim 7 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device issues an alarm when the water quality of the pure water does not meet the predetermined reference (Pyle TDS High Alarm C15/L52-60).
Regarding Claim 9 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 2, but does not disclose a first bypass pipe that bypasses the first valve; a first manual valve that is provided on the first bypass pipe; a third bypass pipe that bypasses the third valve; and a third manual valve that is provided on the third bypass pipe.
However, as the values are electronically controlled, it is well known to provide bypass pipes having manual valves in order to provide manual control in case the valve stops functioning or needs to be replaced, i.e. to avoid overpressure, testing, etc. and would therefore have been obvious to provide such bypass pipes and manual valves for any or all of the electronically controlled valves.
Regarding Claim 12 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to control the analysis device to perform the water quality inspection at a predetermined time interval (in at least one part of the process the water quality inspection is performed at a predetermined time interval, 5 minutes; Pyle C17/L45-55).
Regarding Claim 13 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 2, wherein it is disclosed that the TDS2 meter reading determines if water flows through valve V23 (good water to storage tank) or V24 (bad water directed to discharge tank) based on comparison to a set point parameter that is usually 20 ppm, where only one may be open at a time and are controlled by the control system, and notes when “TDS>Set point” the bad water valve V24 is opened and the good water valve V23 is closed, so water flows to the discharge tank for disposal, (Pyle C14/L19-30, C17/L21-C18/L25), and is thus seen to disclose that the control device is configured to close the first valve upon determining that the water quality of the pure water does not meet the predetermined reference during the supply of the pure water to the water storage tank. It is not specifically disclosed if this is done “immediately”, however since it is disclosed that “good water” should go the storage tank and “bad water” should go to discharge, it would have been obvious to control the valves immediately when the valve is determined to be good or bad so as much of the water as possible the water is sent to the correct tank based on ppm level.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle in view of Ackermann further in view of US 5,779,911 (hereinafter “Haug”) and KR 100507265 B1 (hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding Claim 8 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the control device analyzes the result of the water quality inspection, and predicts at least one of a regeneration time and an exchange time of an ion exchange resin included in the manufacturing apparatus.
However with regard to ion exchange resin included in the manufacturing apparatus, Pyle discloses a filter F4 for removing iron (C11/L59-C12/L3) but does not disclose the specific media of the filter. Haug further discloses that ion exchange media is known for removal of iron when used in a similar water purification system (C6/L41-46).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Pyle in view of Ackermann by using ion exchange resin in the iron removal filter as disclosed by Haug because this involves the simple substation of known iron removal filtration media used in a filter for removing iron to obtain the predictable result of a successful iron removal filter.
With regard to predicting at least one of a regeneration time and an exchange time of an ion exchange resin, Sun discloses it is known to use measured TDS as a means to calculate and predict regeneration time of an ion exchange filter (pg. 3 of translation, measuring means 200).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Pyle in view of Ackermann by using the control device to analyze the result of the water quality inspection, and predict a regeneration time of the ion exchange resin as disclosed by Sun in order to monitor the life of the filter and know when to replace or regenerate the ion exchange resin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle in view of Ackermann further in view of US 10,525,421 (hereinafter “Kolel-Veetil”).
Regarding Claim 11 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis device comprises a TDS meter, supra, but does not disclose wherein the analysis device comprises an electric conductivity meter configured to measure an electric conductivity of the water and a pH meter configured to measure a pH of the water.
However, with regard to an electric conductivity meter, Kolel-Veetil discloses that electric conductivity meter configured to measure an electric conductivity of the water can be used to measure TDS (C5/L59-64).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Pyle in view of Ackermann by using for the TDS meter an electrical conductivity meter configured to measure an electric conductivity of the water as disclosed by Kolel-Veetil because this is a known type of sensor for measuring TDS of fluid in a fluid treatment process.
With regard to a pH meter, Pyle discloses including a monitoring subsystem comprising a TDS3 meter, a pH meter (i.e. configured to measure a pH of the water) and a chlorine monitor together in a manifold (C6/L34-42, C19/L9-19). Since it is obvious, as detailed above with regard to TDS1 and TDS2, to use a shared TDS meter it would further have been obvious for the TDS3 to be replaced by conduit leading to a shared TDS meter, so only one TDS meter is needed for the system. Further, because TDS is disclosed to share a manifold with a pH meter it would have been obvious to include this pH meter in the shared analysis device, i.e. so that it is paired with the TDS meter and because this would allow the pH meter to be used to measure the fluids from the additional sampling locations of TDS 1 and TDS2, to allow additional analysis of water quality parameters.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle in view of Ackermann further in view of Cheong, C., Sakaguchi, A., Sueki, K. et al. Evaluation of the Calibration Method for Accurate Analysis of Dissolved Silica by Continuous Flow Analysis. ANAL. SCI. 36, 247–251 (2020). (hereinafter “Cheong”).
Regarding Claim 14 Pyle in view of Ackermann discloses the pure water manufacturing management system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the analysis device further includes a standard silica container configured to store a silica solution with a known silica concentration, and a pure water container configured to store pure water with a known silica concentration, wherein the silica concentration meter is configured to measure a first silica concentration of the water acquired from the second pipe or the fourth pipe, to measure a second silica concentration of the silica solution stored in the standard silica container, and to compare the first concentration with the second concentration.
However Cheong discloses a calibration method for accurate analysis of dissolved silica in water by continuous flow analysis (i.e. calibration of a silica concentration meter/analyzer), wherein multiple reference solutions, i.e. of known silica concentration, are used to calculate a calibration curve; where thus further readings of the analyzer are compared to the calibration curve to determine silica concentration of a sample; Abstract, Introduction, Fig. 1, Calibration methods for CFA, Analysis of seawater sample, Conclusions).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Pyle in view of Ackermann to use a CFA silica analyzer/silica concentration meter configured to measure a first silica concentration of the water acquired from the second pipe or the fourth pipe (i.e. to inspect water quality) because as disclosed by Cheong this is a known means for continuously measuring silica content in water which involves the simple substitution of known silica analyzers to obtain the predictable result of successfully measuring silica concentration in water; and further to include multiple standard silica solutions in containers in order to calibrate the silica concentration meter by configuring the silica concentration meter to measure a second silica concentration of the silica solution stored in a standard silica container of known concentration in order to calculate the calibration curve, and then compare the first concentration with the calibration curve which is thus a comparison to the second concentration; because as disclosed by Cheong this is a known means for calibrating the silica analyzer to obtain accurate silica concentration measurements.
Where one of the standard silica containers may be considered the claimed pure water container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are now moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights