DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 06/10/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 stand rejected. Claims 6-17 are canceled. Claims 18-33 are new. Claims 1-4 and 18-33 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 4
The Applicant argues that the same component in reference Ubelhor was cited for two separate components (pg. 2 of 6). This is unpersuasive because the claimed disinfection subsystem was mapped to an injection point of Ubelhor (Fig. 2, C5/L21-24, injection point 30) and the claimed pre-chlorination subsystem was mapped to a disinfection tank of Ubelhor (Fig. 2, C5/L26-27, disinfectant tank 32).
The Applicant argues that sodium hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid solutions are chemically different (pg. 3 of 6). This is persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Ness discloses a range outside of the claimed range of 1 mg/L to 7 mg/L (pg. 3 of 6). This is unpersuasive because Ness teaches that suitable amounts include from about 1 to about 50 mg/L (C4/L59-60).
The Applicant argues that reference Duta does not teach a carbon filtration subsystem (pg. 4 of 6). This is unpersuasive because the reactor of Duta includes activated carbon in the catalyst materials (Duta, [0029]), where the catalyst materials assist in filtration of oxidation products from water (Duta, [0028]). Thus, the reactor of Duta is being interpreted as a type of carbon filtration subsystem.
The Applicant argues that Duta does not explicitly disclose that the valves of Duta serve as flow restrictors (pgs. 4-5 of 6). This is unpersuasive because the opening and closing of valves is a form of flow restriction. The Applicant further argues that the valves of Duta cannot serve as flow restrictors to limit a maximum flow rate of water (pg. 5 of 6). This is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
The Applicant argues that the ranges of Duta are related to chlorine dioxide which is chemically different from free chloring, which may have intended to read free chlorine (pg. 5 of 6). This is persuasive. However, Duta also teaches that a residual chlorine of 0.05 mg/L or above would provide assurance against pathogen contamination (Duta, [0089]). Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Duta specifies that free chlorine must not exceed about 0.05 mg/L (pg. 5 of 6). This is unpersuasive because this is for the purpose of preventing damage of reverse osmosis membranes (Duta, [0023]) and Duta was not relied upon to teach reverse osmosis membranes.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, 22, 29 and 33 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because Claim 1 reads “subsytem” in line 17.
Claim 18 is objected to because Claim 18 reads “is fluidly connected to the associated intermediate treatment subsystem to the associated disinfection subsystem” in lines 4-5.
Claim 22 is objected to because Claim 22 reads “the plurality of effluent branch conduits is fluidly coupled to the main influent conduit and the associated disinfection subsystem” in lines 2-4, which may have intended to read “the plurality of effluent branch conduits is fluidly coupled to the main effluent conduit and the associated disinfection subsystem”.
Claim 26 is objected to because Claim 26 reads “…10 seconds per cubic foot at the filter media within each carbon tank”.
Claim 29 is objected to because Claim 29 reads “The method of claim 4 further comprises” in line 1.
Claim 33 is objected to because Claim 33 reads “1mg/L” in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-22 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.
Claims 19 and 21-22 recite the limitation "carbon filtration system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 32, directed towards a water treatment and filtration system, depends on Claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claim 33, directed towards a method, depends on Claim 32, which is directed towards a water treatment and filtration system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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 1, 3-4, 21-23 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.) in view of Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106) and in further view of U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and in further view of Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus and a method.
Regarding Claims 1, 3 and 21-23, Xian teaches a water treatment and filtration system (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, reproduced below) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
274
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pre-chlorination subsystem (section 2.2.2 Pre-Oxidation: Chlorination, Ozone, Permanganate, and Ferrate) fluidly coupled to an associated collection subsystem of an associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1 and pg. 24, Fig. 3.1, section 3 Experimental Materials and Method, chlorination was performed between collection and coagulation) and an associated intermediate treatment subsystem of the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, coagulation/flocculation and settling and pg. 24, section 3 Experimental Materials and Method, coagulation),
the pre-chlorination subsystem being positioned downstream from the associated collection subsystem and upstream from the associated intermediate treatment subsystem (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1 and pg. 24, Fig. 3.1, section 3 Experimental Materials and Method);
wherein the pre-chlorination subsystem comprises a pre-chlorination holding tank and a pre-chlorination treatment comprising a predetermined dose of sodium hypochlorite or chlorine gas (pg. 25, section 3.1.1 Chemical Reagents, free chlorine stock solution prepared from sodium hypochlorite);
a filtration subsystem (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, filtration and pg. 24, filtration is performed between coagulation and disinfection) fluidly coupled to the associated intermediate treatment subsystem and an associated disinfection subsystem of the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 24),
the filtration subsystem being positioned downstream from the associated intermediate treatment subsystem and upstream from the associated disinfection subsystem (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, filtration and pg. 24, filtration is performed between coagulation and disinfection).
Xian does not teach that the predetermined dose ranges from 1 mg/L to 7 mg/L, that the filtration subsystem is a carbon filtration subsystem, wherein the carbon filtration subsystem comprises a modular assembly of a plurality of carbon tanks coupled to a main influent conduit and a main effluent conduit, and one or more flow restrictors coupled to the main effluent conduit and configured to limit a maximum flow rate of water through each carbon tank; wherein each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks comprises a media filter constructed of activated carbon; wherein a concentration of free chlorine of the water within the main influent conduit is 0.2 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L.
Lantagne also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (pg. 109), comprising a
predetermined dose of sodium hypochlorite or chlorine gas ranging from 1 mg/L to 7 mg/L (pg. 108, right column), wherein a concentration of free chlorine of the water is 0.2 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L (pg. 110, right column and pg. 111).
Wilkinson also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), wherein the carbon filtration subsystem comprises a modular assembly of a plurality of carbon tanks (Fig. 2, [0043], one or more in-line filter units 228) coupled to a main influent conduit (Fig. 2A, [0042], hose 222) and a main effluent conduit (Fig. 2A, [0042], hose 224), wherein each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks comprises a media filter constructed of activated carbon ([0043]).
Sale also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), wherein the carbon filtration subsystem (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, tanks 148, 150, 152 and 154) comprises one or more flow restrictors (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, throttling valves 149, 151, 153 and 155) coupled to the main effluent conduit (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, into line 158 after throttling valves) and configured to limit a maximum flow rate of water through each carbon tank (C7/L34-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the predetermined dose of Lantagne and the water treatment and filtration system of Xian to provide a dosage necessary to leave a desired free chlorine residual (Lantagne, pg. 107, right column) and adequately protect water from recontamination (Lantagne, pg. 111). It would have been obvious to combine the carbon filtration subsystem of Wilkinson and the water treatment and filtration system of Xian and Lantagne to independently turn on and off carbon tanks as desired to filter and/or adsorb undesirable particulates or other matter from the water (Wilkinson, [0043]). It would have been obvious to combine the one or more flow restrictors of Sale and the water treatment and filtration system of Xian, Lantagne and Wilkinson to limit flow rate parameters to adjust contact time of the water and activated carbon beds, because activated carbon bed performance is directly proportional to contact time (Abdul-Ahad, pg. 43).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: the plurality of carbon tanks are fluidly coupled to the main influent conduit and main effluent conduit in parallel (Wilkinson, [0043]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 31, Xian teaches a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (pgs. 3 and 9-10), the method comprising:
a. dosing, with a predetermined dose of a pre-chlorination treatment (section 2.2.2 Pre-Oxidation: Chlorination, Ozone, Permanganate, and Ferrate), raw water collected with an associated collection subsystem of an associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1 and pg. 24, Fig. 3.1, section 3 Experimental Materials and Method, chlorination was performed after collection);
b. processing the water with an associated intermediate treatment process provided by the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, coagulation/flocculation and settling and pg. 24, section 3 Experimental Materials and Method, coagulation);
c. filtering the water (pgs. 9-10, Fig. 2.1, filtration and pg. 24, filtration is performed between coagulation and disinfection);
d. disinfecting the water with an associated disinfection subsystem provided by the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (pgs. 9-10, Fig. 2.1, and pg. 24, disinfection); and
e. distributing effluent of the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant with an associated distribution subsystem provided by the municipal drinking water treatment plant (pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, distribution).
Xian does not teach that the pre-chlorination treatment comprises a predetermined dose of sodium hypochlorite or chlorine gas ranging from 1 mg/L to 7 mg/L, a carbon filtration subsystem comprising a plurality of carbon tanks fluidly coupled to a main influent conduit and a main effluent conduit, and a flow restrictor coupled to the main effluent conduit and configured to limit a maximum flow rate of water through each carbon tank; wherein each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks comprises a media filter constructed of activated carbon, and wherein a concentration of free chlorine of water within the main influent conduit is 0.2 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L.
Lantagne also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (pg. 109), comprising a predetermined dose of sodium hypochlorite or chlorine gas ranging from 1 mg/L to 7 mg/L (pg. 108, right column), wherein a concentration of free chlorine of the water is 0.2 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L (pg. 110, right column and pg. 111).
Wilkinson also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system ([0002]), including a carbon filtration subsystem comprising a plurality of carbon tanks (Fig. 2, [0043], one or more in-line filter units 228) fluidly coupled to a main influent conduit (Fig. 2A, [0042], hose 222) and a main effluent conduit (Fig. 2A, [0042], hose 224), wherein each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks comprises a media filter constructed of activated carbon ([0043]).
Sale also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), wherein the plurality of carbon tanks (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, tanks 148, 150, 152 and 154) are fluidly coupled to a flow restrictor (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, throttling valves 149, 151, 153 and 155) coupled to the main effluent conduit (Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, into line 158 after throttling valves) and configured to limit a maximum flow rate of water through each carbon tank (C7/L34-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the predetermined dose of Lantagne and the method of Xian to provide a dosage necessary to leave a desired free chlorine residual (Lantagne, pg. 107, right column) and adequately protect water from recontamination (Lantagne, pg. 111). It would have been obvious to combine the carbon filtration subsystem of Wilkinson and the method of Xian and Lantagne to independently turn on and off carbon tanks as desired to filter and/or adsorb undesirable particulates or other matter from the water (Wilkinson, [0043]). It would have been obvious to combine the flow restrictors of Sale and the method of Xian, Lantagne and Wilkinson to limit flow rate parameters to adjust contact time of the water and activated carbon beds, because activated carbon bed performance is directly proportional to contact time (Abdul-Ahad, pg. 43).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 21: the carbon filtration system further comprises a plurality of influent branch conduits (Sale, Fig. 1, C7/L24-43, branch conduits comprising valves 140, 142, 144 and 146), and each influent branch conduit of the plurality of influent branch conduits is fluidly coupled to the main influent conduit (Sale, Fig. 1, C7/L24-43, line leading to valves 140, 142, 144 and 146).
Claim 22: the carbon filtration system further comprises a plurality of effluent branch conduits (Sale, Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, branch conduits comprising valves 149, 151, 153 and 155), and the plurality of effluent branch conduits is fluidly coupled to the main influent conduit (Sale, Fig. 1, C7/L34-55, into line 158 after throttling valves) and the associated disinfection subsystem (Xian, pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, disinfection is performed after filtration).
Claim 23: wherein water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits has at least one of a plurality of quality characteristics comprising total organic carbon (TOC) not greater than a predetermined concentration (Xian, pg. 43), total dissolved solids (TDS) not greater than a predetermined concentration, pH within a predetermined range (Xian, pg. 39), sulfide not greater than a predetermined concentration, and total iron not greater than a predetermined concentration.
Claim 31: the maximum flow rate of water through each carbon tank is 2 gallons per minute per cubic foot (Abdul-Ahad, pgs. 44-45).
Claim 32: wherein water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits has at least one of a plurality of quality characteristics comprising total organic carbon (TOC) not greater than a predetermined concentration (Xian, pg. 43), total dissolved solids (TDS) not greater than a predetermined concentration, pH within a predetermined range (Xian, pg. 39), sulfide not greater than a predetermined concentration, and total iron not greater than a predetermined concentration.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20020189998A1 (‘Haase’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the water treatment and filtration system of Claim 1, except an aeration treatment subsystem located downstream relative to the associated intermediate treatment subsystems and upstream from the carbon filtration subsystem.
Haase also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including an aeration treatment subsystem (Fig. 1, [0021], separation can occur by air flotation) located downstream relative to the associated intermediate treatment subsystems (Fig. 1, [0019-0020], coagulation and flocculation) and upstream from the carbon filtration subsystem (Figs. 1-4, [0032], activated carbon filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aeration treatment subsystem of Haase and the water treatment and filtration system of the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad, as demonstrated by Haase, to remove solids (Haase, [0021]) and produce low turbidity water (Haase, [0137]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20160289085A1 (‘DeMyer’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the water treatment and filtration system of Claim 1, including that the main influent conduit is fluidly coupled to an effluent of the associated intermediate treatment subsystem of the associated municipal drinking water treatment plant (Xian, pg. 9, Fig. 2.1, filtration and pg. 24, filtration is performed after coagulation), except that a carbon filtration bypass is fluidly connected to the associated intermediate treatment subsystem to the associated disinfection subsystem.
DeMyer also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), wherein a carbon filtration bypass (Fig. 1, [0035] and [0086], bypass valves 126A and 126B) is fluidly connected to the associated intermediate treatment subsystem to the associated disinfection subsystem (Fig. 1, [0036], chemical treatment unit 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the carbon filtration by[ass of DeMyer and the water treatment and filtration system of the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad to bypass inoperable or unnecessary filters (DeMyer, [0027]) and to adjust to a specific environmental challenge, adapt to a filter that has reached capacity, and/or to conserve a low energy source (DeMyer, [0028]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20060108284A1 (‘Christeson’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 19-20, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the water treatment and filtration system of Claim 1, except that the carbon filtration system further comprises a plurality of backwashing discharge conduits, and a drain field, wherein each backwashing discharge conduit of the plurality of backwashing discharge conduits fluidly couples a distinct carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks to the drain field.
Christeson also relates to a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including that the carbon filtration system (Fig. 1, [0029], tertiary granular activated carbon) further comprises a plurality of backwashing discharge conduits ([0035]), and a drain field ([0037]),
wherein each ([0039]) backwashing discharge conduit of the plurality of backwashing discharge conduits fluidly couples a distinct carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks to the drain field ([0035-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of backwashing discharge conduits of Christeson and the carbon filtration system of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad to detach solids which have been retained by the carbon (Christeson, [0035]).
Claims 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 23 for Claim 24 and as applied to claim 32 for Claim 33 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20210032125A1 (‘Worley’), U.S. Patent US4264451A (‘Pope’) and U.S. Publication US20180050938A1 (‘Duta’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus and a method.
Regarding Claims 24 and 33, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the water treatment and filtration system of Claim 23 and the method of Claim 32, including that the water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits comprises total organic carbon (TOC) not greater than 3 mg/L (Haase, [0189], column, Clarified NTU TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) not greater than 3 mg/L (Xian, pgs. 42-43) and pH between 6 to 8 (Xian, pg. 39, Fig. 4.3(b)), except total dissolved solids (TDS) not greater than 500 mg/L, sulfides not greater than 1 mg/L, and total iron not greater than l mg/L.
Worley also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including that the water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits comprises total dissolved solids (TDS) not greater than 500 mg/L ([0012]).
Pope also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including that the water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits comprises sulfides not greater than 1 mg/L (abstract and C5/L35-C6/L35).
Duta also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including that the water within the main influent conduit and the plurality of influent branch conduits comprises total iron not greater than l mg/L ([0060] and [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the water of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad can comprise total dissolved solids (TDS) not greater than 500 mg/L, as demonstrated by Worley, because both Worley and Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad use coagulation and flocculation (Worley, [0013] and Xian, Fig. 2.1) and filtration (Worley, [0054] and Xian, Fig. 2.1). It would have been obvious that the water of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad can comprise total iron not greater than l mg/L, as demonstrated by Pope, because chlorination converts sulfides to sulfates (Pope, abstract). It would have been obvious that the water of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad can comprise total iron not greater than l mg/L, as demonstrated by Duta, because both Duta and the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad use pre-chlorination (Duta, [0016] and Xian, Fig. 2.1), coagulation and flocculation (Duta, [0055] and Xian, Fig. 2.1) and filtration (Duta, [0028-0029]) and Xian, Fig. 2.1).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Publication Extended Dechlorination Studies with Granular Activated Carbon Filters (‘Suidan’, Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) , Nov., 1980, Vol. 52, No. 11 (Nov., 1980), pp. 2634-2646).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the method of Claim 4, including backwashing (Abdul-Ahad, pg. 45), except backwashing the plurality of carbon tanks when concentration of free chlorine of water within the main influent is greater than 0.5 mg/L.
Suidan also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (pg. 2635, left column), including backwashing (pg. 2637, right column) carbon tanks when concentration of free chlorine of water within the main influent is greater than 0.5 mg/L (pg. 2638, left column and Figs. 3-4 and pg. 2642, right column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to backwash the plurality of carbon tanks of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad when the concentration of free chlorine of water within the main influent is greater than 0.5 mg/L, as demonstrated by Suidan, because free chlorine breakthrough and carbon elimination are both very sensitive to free chlorine concentration in the feed water (Suidan, pg. 2642, right column) and carbon removal through backwashing (Suidan, pg. 2638, left column and pg. 2637, right column, removes the most oxidized carbon) has to be initiated long before chlorine breakthrough (Suidan, pg. 2642, right column).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’), Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) and Publication Extended Dechlorination Studies with Granular Activated Carbon Filters (‘Suidan’, Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) , Nov., 1980, Vol. 52, No. 11 (Nov., 1980), pp. 2634-2646) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US3932278A (‘Meidl’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale, Abdul-Ahad and Suidan teaches the method of Claim 25, except that a duration of backwashing the plurality of carbon tanks is 10 seconds per cubic foot at the filter media within each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks.
Meidl also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including a duration of backwashing the plurality of carbon tanks is 10 seconds per cubic foot at the filter media within each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks (C1/L49-55 and C2/L27-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the duration of backwashing of Meidl and the method of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale, Abdul-Ahad and Suidan to dissociate accumulations in the bed that provide channels through which unfiltered water can pass (Meidl, C1/L8-30).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’), Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49), Publication Extended Dechlorination Studies with Granular Activated Carbon Filters (‘Suidan’, Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) , Nov., 1980, Vol. 52, No. 11 (Nov., 1980), pp. 2634-2646) and U.S. Patent US3932278A (‘Meidl’) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20180050938A1 (‘Duta’) and U.S. Publication US20170232421A1 (‘Kopinke’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 27-28, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale, Abdul-Ahad, Suidan and Meidl teaches the method of Claim 26, except rinsing the plurality of carbon tanks upon completion of backwashing the plurality of carbon tanks.
Duta also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system (abstract), including rinsing the plurality of carbon tanks upon completion of backwashing the plurality of carbon tanks ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rinsing of Duta after the backwashing of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale, Abdul-Ahad, Suidan and Meidl, as demonstrated by Duta, because the bed contains water that has not been subjected to treatment (Duta, [0059]) and rinsing clears the activated carbon of reagents and reaction products so the activated carbon is then available for reloading in the untreated water flow (Kopinke, [0001]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 28: a duration of rinsing the plurality of carbon tanks is at least 8 seconds per cubic foot of filter media within each carbon tank of the plurality of carbon tanks (Kopinke, [0036] and [0057]). (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rinsing duration of Kopinke and the method of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale, Abdul-Ahad, Suidan, Meidl, Duta and Kopinke because flushing efficiency is initially high then decreases as rinsing progresses (Kopinke, [0058]). Furthermore, faster rinsing reduces efficiency, meaning water consumption is increased for the same rinsing result (Kopinke, [0057]).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters (‘Xian’, Hu, Xian, "Formation Potential of Disinfection By-products after Coagulation of Algal Matters" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3751.), Publication Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment (‘Lantagne’, Journal of the American Water Works Association. , 2008, Vol.100(8), p.106), U.S. Publication US20210086241A1 (‘Wilkinson’), U.S. Patent US4724079A (‘Sale’) and Publication Design Criteria of an Activated Carbon Bed for Dechlorination of Water (‘Abdul-Ahad’, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.9 No.4 (December 2008) 41- 49) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20090127207A1 (‘Okamoto’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 29-30, the combination of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad teaches the method of Claim 4, except dosing the water within the main influent conduit with a predetermined dose of hydrogen peroxide after step b, wherein the predetermined dose of hydrogen peroxide is 0.2 to 0.8 mg/L.
Okamoto also relates to a method of using a water treatment and filtration system ([0001]), including dosing the water within the main influent conduit with a predetermined dose of hydrogen peroxide (Fig. 2, [0194], hydrogen peroxide supply apparatus 15) after step b (Fig. 2, [0194], cavitation in venturi tube 7A), wherein the predetermined dose of hydrogen peroxide is 0.2 to 0.8 mg/L ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dose the water of the method of Xian, Lantagne, Wilkinson, Sale and Abdul-Ahad after step b, as demonstrated by Okamoto, to suppress the generation of disinfection by-products and destroy organisms unremoved even after chlorine treatment (Okamoto, [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779