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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; therefore, all limitations wholly directed to the water system have no patentable weight. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume Applicant intended to positively recite the limitations pertaining to the water system as components or elements of the claimed inventive device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of pores are sized to enable free flow of water between the outer surface and the inner surface, wherein the permeable fabric structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least a portion of the permeable fabric structure being spaced apart from another surface relative to both the outer surface and the inner surface such that the at least the portion of the permeable fabric structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores” and claim 36 recites the limitation “wherein the stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least a portion of the stand-alone 3- dimensional flexible structure being spaced apart from another surface relative to both the outer surface and the inner surface such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores” with guidance from Applicant’s arguments filed 12/20/2024, Page 10 that the “flexibly mounted” and “is configured to flex” limitations are described in the following paragraphs of the instant specification:
[0183] In various embodiments, the presence of numerous small fibers in the permeable material of a system can provide a substantial increase in the complexity of the 3-dimensional structure of the material, as these structures can extend into and/or around open interstices in the woven pattern. This arrangement of fibers can further provide a more tortuous path for organisms trying to traverse the depth of the structure and enter the internal environment protected by the enclosure, and/or or may provide a much higher surface area of the structure to which the optional biocide coating may adhere. In various embodiments, it has been determined that spun polyester has highly desirable characteristics as an enclosure material, as the shape and/or size of the 3-dimensonal "entry paths" into the enclosure (i.e., as the microorganisms pass through the openings and/or pores of the material) will desirably provide a longer pathway, a larger surface area and/or may prove more effective in impeding the flow of fouling organisms into the enclosure and/or retaining larger amounts of biocide coating therein.
[0303] In a similar manner, various embodiments of the enclosure will desirably incorporate permeable and/or flexible attachment mechanisms and/or closures, such that relatively hard, unbroken and/or impermeable surfaces will desirably not be presented externally to the surrounding aqueous environment by the enclosure. In many cases, biofouling entities may prefer a hard, unbroken surface for settlement and/or colonization, which can provide such entities a "foothold" for subsequent colonization on adjacent flexible structure sections such as those of the enclosures described herein. By reducing the potential for such "foothold" locations, many of the disclosed enclosure designs can significantly improve the biofouling resistance of various of the disclosed embodiments and/or the substrate protection provided thereof. In at least one embodiment, an enclosure can be particularized for a substrate that is made as a single construction with no seams and/or no impermeable wall sections.
The Examiner notes that paragraph 0183 describes fibers extending into and around the open interstices in the woven pattern as being important characteristics and that paragraph 0303 describes hard, unbroken, and/or impermeable surfaces as being undesirable characteristics in which biofouling entities prefer for colonization and that permeable and/or flexible attachment mechanisms are preferred to reduce “foothold” locations for biofouling entities.
Claim 18 recites the term “water chemistry of the water”. Claim 27 further recites “first chemistry” and “second chemistry” with respect to water. As defined in the Specification p0251, “water chemistry” is described as:
Some exemplary water chemistry features that could potentially be "different" and/or which might remain the same (i.e., depending upon enclosure design and/or other environmental factors such as location and/or season) can include dissolved oxygen, pH, total dissolved nitrogen, ammonium, nitrates, nitrites, orthophosphates, total dissolved phosphates, silica, salinity, temperature, turbidity, chlorophyll, etc.
Thus, the Examiner will consider “water chemistry” to include at least these elements listed above.
Claims 35 and 36 recite the term “stand-alone”. There is no explicit definition in the specification for “stand-alone”, and thus the common definition of being intended, designed or able to be used or to function alone or separately will be considered regarding the interpretation of claims 35 and 36.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 26-27, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “free flow of water” in line 20 of the claim should read “free flow of the water”.
In Claim 15, “draw conditioned water” in line 2 of the claim should read “draw the conditioned water”.
In Claim 26, “draw conditioned water” in line 2 of the claim should read “draw the conditioned water”.
In Claim 27, “second chemistry of water” in line 3 of the claim should read “second chemistry of the water”.
In Claim 29, “free flow of water” in lines 2-3 of the claim should read “free flow of the water”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 14, 18-19, 28, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Patrick (US Patent No. 20080302713 A1) hereinafter Patrick.
Regarding Claim 1, Patrick discloses an antimicrobial filter cartridge to remove bacteria and other contaminants from water and which prevents the growth of bacterial and other microorganisms on the filter media (i.e., a device for reducing biofouling in a water system; Abstract); the filter cartridge (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0016) comprising a housing (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #23; Abstract); with a core containing an outer wrapping comprising an anti-microbially and/or bactericidally treated yarn (i.e., at least one layer of a permeable fabric structure positioned within or defining a portion of a wall of the reservoir, wherein the permeable fabric structure comprises an outer surface, an inner surface and a plurality of pores extending therebetween, the permeable fabric structure having a biocide on or in one or more of the outer surface or the inner surface and extending within at least a portion of at least one of a plurality of pores; wherein the plurality of pores are sized to enable free flow of water between the outer surface and the inner surface, wherein the permeable fabric structure is flexibly mounted within or defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least a portion of the permeable fabric structure being spaced apart from another surface relative to both the outer surface and the inner surface such that the at least the portion of the permeable fabric structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores; Fig. 1, #18, 20; Paragraph 0021); and where the filter cartridge (Fig. 3, #10) supplies a water filtration system (i.e., wherein the treatment unit provides conditioned water from the reservoir to the water system, wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #24; Paragraph 0021), and the water flows (Fig. 1, #25; Arrows) from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected and directed through the central passage to an outside collection and/or delivery means (i.e., the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system, wherein the biocide contacts at least some of the water entering into or within the reservoir of the treatment unit so as to aid in forming the conditioned water prior to the conditioned water traveling into the water system such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit; Paragraph 0028). Yarn will flex to some degree when water flows through the pores and thus reads on the limitation “such that the at least the portion of the permeable fabric structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores”.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that the yarn can be comprised of polypropylene, nylon, cellulose acetate, rayon, lyocell, acrylic, polyester, and/or mixtures thereof (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure comprises a 3-dimensional flexible material selected from the group consisting of natural and synthetic fabrics, natural and synthetic membranes, natural and synthetic sheets, and fabrics, membranes, films and sheets made from a combination of natural and synthetic materials; Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 9, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that the water flows from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected (i.e., wherein the average dwell time is an average amount of time a molecule of the water spends within the reservoir between entering the reservoir and traveling into the water system; Paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is an average amount of time a molecule of the water spends within the reservoir between entering the reservoir and traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 10, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that the water flows from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected (i.e., wherein the average dwell time is determined based on the volume of the reservoir divided by an average water flow rate into the water system determined over a period of an hour during operation of the water system; Paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is determined based on the volume of the reservoir divided by an average water flow rate into the water system determined over a period of an hour during operation of the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 14, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that the yarn will be generally tightly applied about the core to define pores or flow passages therethrough (Paragraph 0024). Additionally, Patrick discloses that the wrapping of a tightly wound antimicrobial yarn about a composite core tube further helps ensure that substantially all of the surface of the central core is protected and that subsequent layers of antimicrobial treated yarns wound about the core help ensure that most of the particulate matter is trapped within the layers provided by the multiple wrappings of yarn (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the conditioned water does not pass through any of the plurality of pores of the permeable fabric structure; Paragraph 0025).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the conditioned water does not pass through any of the plurality of pores of the permeable fabric structure” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that the core composite tube (Fig. 4, #12) is surrounded by the outer wrapping of yarn (Fig. 4, #27) and further contains a bactericidally treated (i.e., configured to adjust water chemistry of the water within the reservoir) fabric wrapping material (i.e., one or more treated structures; Fig. 4, #26) wrapped between the core and yarn layers (i.e., wherein the treatment unit further includes one or more treated structures that are positioned within the reservoir and configured to adjust water chemistry of the water within the reservoir; Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 19, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that multiple layers of antimicrobial treated yarns wound around the core help ensure that most of the particulate matter, as well as some of the inactivated microorganisms, is distributed and trapped within the depth or layers (i.e., tortuous path) of the filter provided by these multiple wrappings of the yarn (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure comprises a plurality of permeable fabric structures positioned in a tortuous path leading to an outlet where the conditioned water is provided to the water system; Paragraph 0025).
Furthermore, the limitation “where the conditioned water is provided to the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 28, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses examples of existing anti-microbially treated fibers including silver coated nylon fibers and silver coated polyester fibers (i.e., wherein the biocide is within a coating applied to the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure; Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 35, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick further discloses that yarn (Fig. 1, #20) is surrounding the core (Fig. 1, #11) and can be made from polypropylene, nylon, rayon, acrylic, polyester and other materials (i.e., wherein the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure forms a stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure positioned within or defining the portion of the wall of the reservoir; Paragraph 0021). Furthermore, the structure disclosed by Patrick is capable of performing the same function of anti-microbially and bactericidally treating water without the core being present (i.e., stand-alone) as water would still flow through the yarn. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 36, Patrick discloses an antimicrobial filter cartridge to remove bacteria and other contaminants from water and which prevents the growth of bacterial and other microorganisms on the filter media (i.e., a device for reducing biofouling in a water system; Abstract); the filter cartridge (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0016) comprising a housing (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #23; Abstract); with a core containing an outer wrapping comprising an anti-microbially and/or bactericidally treated yarn (i.e., at least one layer of a permeable fabric structure that forms a stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure positioned within or defining a portion of a wall of the reservoir, wherein the permeable fabric structure comprises an outer surface, an inner surface and a plurality of pores extending therebetween, the permeable fabric structure having a biocide on or in one or more of the outer surface or the inner surface and extending within at least a portion of at least one of a plurality of pores; wherein the stand-alone 3-dimensional flexible structure defines the portion of the wall of the reservoir with at least a portion of the stand-alone 3- dimensional flexible structure being spaced apart from another surface relative to both the outer surface and the inner surface such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores; Fig. 1, #18, 20; Paragraph 0021); and where the filter cartridge (Fig. 3, #10) supplies a water filtration system (i.e., wherein the treatment unit provides conditioned water from the reservoir to the water system, wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #24; Paragraph 0021), and the water flows (Fig. 1, #25; Arrows) from outside the cartridge (Fig. 1, #10) through the yarn (Fig. 1, #20) and the pores of the core tube (Fig. 1, #12) and into the central passage (Fig. 1, #15) and the water flow is thereafter collected and directed through the central passage to an outside collection and/or delivery means (i.e., the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system, wherein the biocide contacts at least some of the water entering into or within the reservoir of the treatment unit so as to aid in forming the conditioned water prior to the conditioned water traveling into the water system such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit; Paragraph 0028). Yarn will flex to some degree when water flows through the pores and thus reads on the limitation “such that at least the portion of the 3-dimensional flexible structure is configured to flex when the water flows within the plurality of pores”.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the water passing through the water system passes through the treatment unit” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “the conditioned water requiring an average dwell time to stay within the reservoir of the treatment unit before traveling into the water system” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that biofouling is reduced in the water system downstream of the treatment unit” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Furthermore, the structure disclosed by Patrick is capable of performing the same function of anti-microbially and bactericidally treating water without the core being present (i.e., stand-alone) as water would still flow through the yarn. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Shimizu et al (US Patent No. 6303078 B1) hereinafter Shimizu.
Regarding Claim 2, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the permeable fabric structure within the treatment unit has a permeability with a range of 0.1 milliliters of water per second per square centimeter to 100 milliliters of water per second per square centimeter.
However, Shimizu teaches several examples of a thermoplastic resin composition or a fibrous material which may be a fiber of the thermoplastic resin composition, a yarn coated with the thermoplastic resin composition, a rope coated with the thermoplastic resin composition or a woven fabric coated with the thermoplastic resin composition where the thermoplastic resin composition contains an antifouling compound (i.e., permeable fabric structure; Abstract) with examples 2-8 exhibiting water permeability of 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 16 cm3/cm2*sec, 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 27 cm3/cm2*sec, 24 cm3/cm2*sec, 48 cm3/cm2*sec, and 48 cm3/cm2*sec (Table 1) which all fall within the claimed range of 0.1 – 100 mL/cm2*sec. The reason this permeability is desired is that the actual properties of water are changed after the membrane if the permeability is less than 15 cm3/cm2*sec and excessively large permeabilities dilute the antifouling agent such that aquatic organisms can begin to attach (Col. 9, Lines 60-67).
Shimizu is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a fibrous material which contains an antifouling agent (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick with the yarn coated with the thermoplastic resin composition taught by Shimizu because the control of permeability to 27 cm3/cm2*sec would prevent the antifouling agent in the yarn from diluting too much and failing to function.
Claims 5 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Coulter (US Patent No. 20140291253 A1) hereinafter Coulter.
Regarding Claim 5, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is higher than a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system.
However, Coulter teaches a degasifier (fig. 1, #160) that reduces any dissolved oxygen content by means of a contacting membrane and a vacuum source that facilitates the removal of the dissolved gases from the water (Paragraph 0066) for the purpose of providing ultrapure water (Paragraph 0037).
Coulter is analogous with the claimed invention because it pertains to a method and system of treating a liquid stream (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the degasifier taught by Coulter to the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to provide ultrapure water to the downstream water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is higher than a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 34, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is similar to a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system.
However, Coulter teaches the systems and methods of reducing or maintaining a contaminant level of a liquid stream (i.e., dissolved oxygen; Paragraph 0003). The system contains an oxidizing agent concentration sensor, a source of reducing agent to introduce said reducing agent downstream of the oxidizing agent concentration sensor, and a controller to regulate addition of the reducing agent with respect to the oxidizing agent concentration sensor (Paragraph 0007) for the purpose of providing ultrapure water (Paragraph 0037). Through this configuration, the system can output water with a similar dissolved oxygen content to the water entering the reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the system containing the oxidizing agent concentration sensor, the source of reducing agent, and the controller taught by Coulter to the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to provide ultrapure water to the downstream water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a dissolved oxygen content of the water entering the reservoir of the treatment unit is similar to a dissolved oxygen content of the conditioned water travelling into the water system” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Walker (US Patent No. 20010052364 A1) hereinafter Walker.
Regarding Claim 6, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the water system comprises a once-through system.
However, Walker teaches that water distribution systems of various types are common, and that generally these are once-through systems for the purpose of only supplying water when a user demand occurs (Paragraph 0002).
Walker is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to water distribution systems (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the filter cartridge taught by Patrick to the once-through water system taught by Walker because the system would supply water to users only on demand.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 6 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 7, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the water system comprises a recirculation system.
However, Walker teaches a water system with a recirculating loop that includes a pump (Fig. 1) for the purpose of avoiding stagnation and impeding deterioration in the potability of the water (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the filter cartridge taught by Patrick to the water system with a recirculating loop taught by Walker because the system would avoid stagnation and imped deterioration in the potability of the water.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 7 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 8, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the water system comprises a make-up water circuit of a recirculation system.
However, Walker teaches a water system with recirculation and without a storage tank (Fig. 2), that instead adds make-up water to replace water consumed at the user facility or facilities which is useful when the application is stationary and water is drawn from an external source such as a domestic water supply (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the filter cartridge taught by Patrick to the water system with make-up water taught by Walker because the system would connect to a domestic water supply and draw water from there.
The claimed invention is directed to a device for use in a water system; Claim 8 is wholly directed to the water system and has no patentable weight.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Hughes et al (US Patent No. 5552057 A) hereinafter Hughes.
Regarding Claim 11, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 10. Patrick does not disclose wherein the average dwell time is within a range of 1 minute to 6 hours.
However, Hughes teaches that some microorganisms, including certain virus strains and protozoan cysts may require contact times of up to 20 minutes and 30 minutes and that prior art utilizes holding tanks to achieve this contact time (Col. 1, Lines 46-55), which falls within the range of 1 minute to 6 hours.
Hughes is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a filter for disinfecting non-potable water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the holding tank taught by Hughes to the filter cartridge taught by Patrick because the holding tank would increase the contact time of the microorganisms with the biocide to kill certain viruses and protozoan cysts.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is within a range of 1 minute to 6 hours” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 12, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 10. Patrick does not disclose wherein the average dwell time is 1 minute or less.
However, Hughes teaches a chamber containing a biocidal resin followed by a biocide removal chamber (Abstract). A contact chamber (Fig. 1, #16) has an appropriate volume and flow rate for a residence time of 7-8 seconds (Col. 8, Lines 24-49) for the purpose of purifying a high, continuous water flow rate without a large biocide resin volume and without a holding tank (Col. 8 Lines 66-67 to Col. 9, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the biocidal resin, contact chamber, and biocide removal chamber taught by Hughes to the filter cartridge taught by Patrick because the filter could purify high, continuous flow rates of water without a large biocide resin volume.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is 1 minute or less” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Spittle et al (US Patent No. 20130175222 A1) hereinafter Spittle.
Regarding Claim 13, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 10. Patrick does not disclose wherein the average dwell time is greater than 6 hours.
However, Spittle teaches a water purification device (Fig. 6, #100) including only a biocidal chamber (Fig. 1a, #104) that has increased in size with a dwell time of 8 to 12 hours for the purpose of overnight purification and morning discharge (Paragraph 0098).
Spittle in analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water purification device (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter cartridge taught by Patrick with the size of biocidal chamber taught by Spittle because then the water would be purified overnight and collected or sent to a water system in the morning.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the average dwell time is greater than 6 hours” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 15-17, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz (US Patent No. 20170349455 A1) hereinafter Katz.
Regarding Claim 15, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the reservoir is positioned within a body of water and a water intake for the water system is configured to draw conditioned water from within the reservoir such that water from the body of water is pulled into the reservoir to fill the reservoir to replace the conditioned water taken through the water intake.
However, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir is a water intake for the water system; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., positioned within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., conditioned water; Paragraphs 0050-0051) from at least one pipe (i.e., to draw conditioned water from within the reservoir such that water from the body of water is pulled into the reservoir to fill the reservoir to replace the conditioned water taken through the water intake; Fig. 4, #38, 57; Paragraph 0059). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus, system, and method to purify water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Furthermore, the limitation “such that water from the body of water is pulled into the reservoir to fill the reservoir to replace the conditioned water taken through the water intake” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 16, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the reservoir is positioned within a body of water, wherein the reservoir is or defines an inlet for the water from the body of water, wherein the inlet comprises the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure such that the water from the body of water flows through the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure into the reservoir.
However, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir is or defines an inlet; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., for the water from the body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow, which can be made of netting (i.e., the inlet comprises the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure such that the water from the body of water flows through the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure into the reservoir; Paragraph 0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Regarding Claim 17, Patrick in view of Katz makes obvious the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 16. Patrick further teaches that the yarn wound around the composite core can be replaced by other materials (Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Patrick does not teach that the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure forms the inlet of the reservoir.
However, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow, which can be made of netting (i.e., the at least one layer of the permeable fabric structure forms the inlet; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 21, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the treatment unit is an enclosure submerged completely within a body of water.
However, Katz teaches that inlet system (i.e., the treatment unit; Fig. 3, #36) consisting of multiple tubing surrounded by 10 mm fixed fishing nets (i.e., an enclosure; Page 14, Chart 1) at a depth of 200 feet (i.e., submerged completely within a body of water; Paragraph 0156). Katz also teaches that the inlets should close to the surface to obtain warmer water which is more favorable for reverse osmosis filter operation (Paragraph 0156) and the inlets can be moved lover when wave action is a concern or red algae is detected (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to avoid red algae coming into the filter by completely submerging the inlet system.
Regarding Claim 25, Patrick in view of Katz makes obvious the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 21. Katz further teaches that a plurality of mooring lines can connect the inlet system (i.e., treatment unit; Fig. 3, #36) to the ocean floor (i.e., a bottom surface of the body of water; Fig. 3, #33) for the purpose of keeping the out walls taut even if they are flexible or in high energy environments (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 26, Patrick in view of Katz makes obvious the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 25. Katz further teaches at least one pipe or tubular (i.e., via one or more pipes; Fig. 3, #38) connecting the inlet device (i.e., water intake of; Fig. 3, #36) to the water purification apparatus and system (i.e., the water system; Paragraph 0050) where the method of filtration involves flowing water into an inlet device and pumping the water through a filtration system (i.e., a pump configured to draw conditioned water from within the reservoir to provide to the water system; Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 27, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the reservoir is formed within a body of water, wherein a first chemistry of the conditioned water is different than a second chemistry of water within the body of water.
However, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., formed within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., first chemistry of the conditioned water is different than a second chemistry of water within the body of water; Paragraphs 0050-0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Costas (US Patent No. 20110120362 A1) hereinafter Costas.
Regarding Claim 20, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the reservoir is formed within a body of water, wherein the permeable fabric structure is attached to a floatable device such that the permeable fabric structure extends downwardly from the floatable device into the water.
However, Costas teaches the formation of a pocket underneath a boat (i.e., reservoir formed within a body of water; Fig. 7; Paragraph 0047) by a blanket made from any material, natural or man-made (i.e., permeable fabric structure; Fig. 6, #210; Paragraph 0048) that has a floating collar (i.e., floatable device; Fig. 6, #200) from which the blanket will hang down vertically beneath the water surface (i.e., wherein the permeable fabric structure is attached to a floatable device such that the permeable fabric structure extends downwardly from the floatable device into the water; Paragraph 0046). An advantage of the floating collar system is that the collar embraces the hull of a ship and may act as an anchor to hold the boat in a static position (Paragraph 0051).
Costas is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus and method for preventing fouling of the submerged part of a boat hull (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the biocidal filter taught by Patrick to be the blanket taught by Costas because the biofouling device would also act as an anchor during an anti-biofouling application for boat hulls.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Katz and further in view of Shimizu.
Regarding Claim 29, Patrick discloses the device for reducing biofouling in a water system of claim 1. Patrick does not disclose wherein the reservoir is formed within a body of water, wherein the permeable fabric structure is configured to allow free flow of water from the body of water without significant build-up occurring on either the outer surface or the inner surface of the permeable fabric structure for at least one month.
However, Katz teaches an inlet system (i.e., reservoir; Fig. 3, #36) for an offshore structure (i.e., formed within a body of water; Fig. 3; Abstract) that comprises a plurality of permeable walls (Fig. 4, #56) that are designed to permit water flow while preventing larger objects and aquatic life from entering the inlet device (i.e., wherein the permeable fabric structure is configured to allow free flow of water from the body of water; Paragraphs 0050-0051). The benefit of the inlet device configuration is that the inlet system depth is adjustable to obtain favorable water input conditions that can include temperature, salinity, turbidity, water bacteria, sediment containment, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge filter taught by Patrick to be on the inlet device taught by Katz because one would be able to adjust the inlet system depth to obtain favorable water input conditions for the water system.
Patrick in view of Katz does not teach without significant build-up occurring on either the outer surface or the inner surface of the permeable fabric structure for at least one month.
However,