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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Claims amendment filed 04/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-25, 27-28, 30-52, 54-69 remain pending in the application, previous claims 4, 13, 26, 29, 53 being cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed most objections and most 35 USC § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/22/2024.
The amendment filed 4/2/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[076] The 3rd stage filtration section contains a series of at least two of the 3rd stage filters assemblies and could contain 1 to 50 activated carbon filter units (filter + housing canister), but preferably could contain 4 to 12 units.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The objection to paragraph [076] for lack of support in the original disclosure is respectfully transversed. Support for the amendment to paragraph [076] entered on June 6th,
2024 can be found, for example, in original claim 54 entered June 6th, 2022 which reads
"Claim 54. A method and a process of claim 19 wherein said 3rd stage filtration section could
contain 1 to 50 activated carbon filter units (filter+ housing canister), but preferably could
contain 4 to 12 units. The desired number of activated carbon filter units will depend upon
how much water needs to be process on a daily basis."” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 19, para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that [076] “The 3rd stage filtration section contains a series of at least two of the 3rd stage filter assemblies” is supported by original claim 54, examiner notes that original claim 54 is indefinite, contains multiple sentences, and does not recite “The 3rd stage filtration section contains a series of at least two of the 3rd stage filters”. Please refer to pages 14-17 of the Office Action of 12/7/2023 for further details.
Applicant argues “the disclosure of Watt cannot directly be substituted in the applicant's disclosure without causing the applicant's invention to fail to perform as it was designed to do.” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 21, para. 2).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues “The activator tank used in the Applicant's disclosure is not the same as the "brine tank" in the HydroTech technology. The activator tank used in the Applicant's disclosure is used to hold the "activator".” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 27, para. 1).
In response to applicant's argument, Examiner clarifies that the brine tank of Hydrotech is used to hold chemical additive that activates, stimulates or initiates a process.
Applicant argues “The retention tank used in the HydroTech disclosure is not designed to contain an activator compound nor is it proper to equate it to a settling tank, respectfully, but is a tank used to allow contaminants such as debris and sediments found in natural waters to settle out in the retention tank under the influence of gravity…In contrast, the …settling tank used in the Applicant's disclosure is for the activator to chelate water-soluble heavy metal compounds that contaminate the water stream, this chemical reaction process produces large, unstable metal-chelate-substances, resulting in their precipitation out of the water stream in the settling tank. Note that without the activator in the water there is no precipitation of the water-soluble metal compounds in the settling tank regardless of the influence of gravity.” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 27 ¶3-4 to p 28 ¶1).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Given the argument above, it appear the intention of the term “settling tank” is used by the claims to mean “reaction/chelation/activator precipitation tank” while the accepted meaning is “a tank used to allow for settling under the influence of gravity.” The term may be indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., without the activator in the water there is no precipitation of the water-soluble metal compounds in the settling tank regardless of the influence of gravity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “Although the disclosure of Watt and Hydrotech could theoretically be combined to produce clean water, the bleach from the Hydrotech technology would have to be removed before the water flowed into the Watt disclosure..” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 28, para. 2).
In response to applicant's argument, Examiner refers to the previous Office Action:
P23:Watts provides motivation for including disinfecting processes (Watts p 4 Col 2 Note "Do not use with water that is microbiologically unsafe or of unknown quality without adequate disinfection before or after the system").
This allows for the consideration of the disinfection system of Hydrotech to be arranged after the system.
P24: Hydrotech also provides motivation for accurately sizing the pump to match the system need: "When sizing the filtration components in a full line chlorination system, the basic rule for filtration applies - match the pump flow rates to the backwash rates and service flow rates. Remember 'Bigger is not always better and smaller is not right either."' (Hydrotech p 5 ¶ Sizing the Filters).
Hydrotech also teaches “dilute the chlorine with ‘clean’ treated soft water to obtain the quantity required versus the pump’s efficient setting.” (Hydrotech p 6 Sec “Sizing the chlorinator”); “Activated Carbon Filter: Will remove any residual chlorine and trace organics in the water, improving taste and odor” (Hydrotech p 3 bullet 1).
Applicant argues “The disclosure of Ritter fails to teach the use of Sodium Lipoate or Alpha Lipoic Acid analogue or any salts thereof.” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 30, para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument pertaining to “The rejection of Claims 5-6, 12-29, 32-36, 41-42, and 63-69 under 35 U.S.C.103” (See Remarks p 26 ¶3), Examiner notes Sodium Lipoate and Alpha Lipoic Acid are alternative options within a group from which the activator of claim 25 is selected.
Applicant argues “The activator must also both chelate with the target and cause the
target to be removed out of solution in contrast to the prior art.” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 31, para. 1).
In response to applicant's argument pertaining to “The rejection of Claims 5-6, 12-29, 32-36, 41-42, and 63-69 under 35 U.S.C.103” (See Remarks p 26 ¶3), Examiner notes that only claims including and depending from claim 6 require that “The activator must also both chelate with the target and cause the target to be removed out of solution in contrast to the prior art.” Referring to the rejection of claim 6 in the previous Office Action:
Ritter also provides motivation for applying natural complex formers to heavy/toxic metal
removal: "A further advantage of the natural complex formers is the ... results in a removal of
the toxic metals dissolved in the water" (Ritter p 3 Col 3 ln 44-49).
Applicant argues “The rejection of Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 …is respectfully traversed in part, and obviated by amendment in part” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 31, para. 3).
In response, Examiner clarifies that not such rejection was made.
Applicant argues “it would be left up to the researcher with undue experimentation to determine if any of the amino acid compounds taught in Ritter would be useful in precipitating out of solution water-soluble metal compounds” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 32, para. 1).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., precipitating out) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30, 54-62, and 67 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The Specification amendment filed 04/22/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. The Specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
[076] The 3rd stage filtration section contains a series of at least two of the 3rd stage filters assemblies and could contain 1 to 50 activated carbon filter units (filter + housing canister), but preferably could contain 4 to 12 units. The desired number of activated carbon filter units will depend upon how much water needs to be process on a daily basis.
The original disclosure supports a series of filter assembles for the 1st stage (p 14) and the 2nd stage (p 15) in the specification but there is no support for a series of filter assembles for the 3rd stage.
To overcome this objection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended subject matter or cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-18, 27-28, 30-33, 48, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “high speed centrifuge that transfers the reduced-metal water having a lower concentration of metal”
There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Note: there is no recitation in the claims upon which claim 14 depends that action upon the water has reduced the metal contained in the water. Although the specification cannot be read into the claims, Examiner suggests Applicant determine and pursue whether there is support in the specification for the activator to lower the concentration of metal contained in the water of claim 12, if the intention is to introduce this limitation antecedent to “the reduced-metal water having a lower concentration of metal” of claim 14.
Claims 15-18 depend on claim 14 and are also rejected.
Claims 15-17 recite “reduced metal water”
It is unclear if “reduced metal” refers to quantity or oxidation state.
It is unclear if “a reduced metal water” of claim 15 pertains to “the reduced metal water” of claim 14
Claim 27 recites “ The system of claim 19 wherein the activator compound is a metal chelator ligand compound in the form of an aqueous solution comprising a water-soluble metal chelator ligand, the ligand being either organic or inorganic, or a salt thereof in aqueous solution formulated in the range of 0.5% to 75% w/w in water.”
There is no antecedent basis for the ligand
Claim 28, 30, 31, 32, and 33 depend on Claim 27 and is also rejected.
Claim 30 recites “ The system of claim 28 wherein the activator is a blend of activator compounds in a 1:1 molar basis ratio of alpha-ketoglutarate and n-acetylcysteine.
Claim 28 recites “the activator compound is 2% w/w L-arginine in water;”
It is unclear how specification p 11 (“A blend of activators could be at a ratio of 1:1, 1:2, or 2:1 depending upon these selected activators.”) supports this claim, where the activator compound is 1:1 molar basis ratio of “alpha-ketoglutarate and n-acetylcysteine” and is “2% w/w L-arginine”.
It is unclear how claim 30 includes all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06 (II). As written, this claim is so unclear that it is not possible either to effectively search it or to determine whether prior art reads on it.
Claim 31 recites “ The system of claim 30 wherein the activator compound is a blend of activator compounds in a 1:1 molar basis ratio of grape seed extract and potassium lipoate.
Claim 28 recites “the activator compound is 2% w/w L-arginine in water;”
It is unclear how specification p 11 (“A blend of activators could be at a ratio of 1:1, 1:2, or 2:1 depending upon these selected activators.”) supports this claim, where the activator compound is 1:1 molar basis ratio of “grape seed extract and potassium lipoate” and is “2% w/w L-arginine”.
It is unclear how claim 31 includes all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06 (II). As written, this claim is so unclear that it is not possible either to effectively search it or to determine whether prior art reads on it.
Claim 48 recites “ The system of claim 47 wherein the 2nd stage housing canister has an inlet that allows the reduced-reduced metal water to enter the housing canister … and an outlet on the at least two 2nd stage housing canisters that allows the reduced-reduced metal water to exit to the transfer line network and into the 3rd stage filtration section.”
Claim 47 has a plurality of serial 2nd stage filter assemblies, each of which contain a 2nd stage housing canister. It is unclear whether “the 2nd stage housing canister” means:
the 2nd stage housing canister is equivalent to the at least two 2nd stage housing canisters
Each 2nd stage filter assembly containing a 2nd stage housing canister has an outlet to the 3rd stage filtration section, regardless of its placement in the series, akin to a bypass flow path.
Because the effluent of multiple stages is referred to as “reduced-reduced water” (See Note below), it is unclear whether “an inlet that allows the reduced-reduced metal water to enter the housing canister” is allowing water from any of:
the 1st stage into a 2nd stage canister
An upstream 2nd stage canister to a downstream 2nd stage canister in the series
the 2nd stage to the 3rd stage canister.
There is no antecedent basis for the housing canister, compounding confusion on which stage the housing canister is in, where the water source is configured to come from/go, and how this relates to the serial assembly of claim 47 upon which claim 48 depends.
For the purpose of furthering prosecution, Examiner interprets this as the inlet(s) and outlet(s) of the 2nd stage filtration section are configured to allow water to move through the 2nd stage filter and exit to the transfer line network and into the 3rd stage filtration section.
Claim 55 recites “ The system of claim 52 wherein the filter housing canister has an inlet …to enter the housing canister, move through the 3rd stage filter, and an outlet on the 3rd stage housing canister”
There is no antecedent basis for the filter housing canister nor the housing canister
Claims 56-62 depend on Claim 55 and are also rejected.
Note: In regard to “reduced water”, “reduced-reduced water”, “reduced metal water”, “reduced-metal water having a lower concentration of metal”, and/or “reduced-metal water having an even lower concentration of metal”, Examiner suggests that, if there is support in the original disclosure, there may be more clarity in referring to the feedwater or influent of each subsequent stage by the stage from whence it came, such as “supernatant from the high-speed centrifuge” or “filtrate of stage 1” or “effluent of stage 1” or “water treated by stage 1”. Words such as supernatant, filtrate, and effluent are also helpful to succinctly imbue further understanding into what action had been taken to achieve the resulting liquid.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 14-24, 34-36, and 41, 42, 52, 54, 63-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Watts (Watts 7100107 Four Stage Kwik-Change Reverse Osmosis _ Build.com, 2012) in view of Hydrotech (Chlorination Systems and Water Conditioning — Hydrotech 2019), further in view of GN (GN, Separation Equipment _ Disc Stack Centrifuge https://www.gnsolidsamerica.com/gndisc-stack-centrifuge.html 2020), further in view of DC (Dolphin Centrifuge, Disc Centrifuge Backpressure _ A Comprehensive Guide, 2021. https://dolphincentrifuge.com/disc-centrifuge-backpressure/).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Without a definition of “small”, Examiner interprets “a small pump” as “a pump”.
Watts teaches a system (Watts p 7 Col 13 ¶Introduction “Watts water treatment system”) constructed to remove harmful inorganic and organic substances present in natural or man-made water sources and industrial processes (Watts p 7 Col 1 “This semi-permeable membrane will effectively take out TDS, Sodium and heavy metals such as arsenic, copper, and lead, as well as Cysts, such as Giardia and cryptosporidium”) with the system comprising:
a 1st stage filtration section suitable for removing debris and small particulate matter (“Stage 1 is a five micron sediment filter that traps particulate matter like dirt, rust, sand silt and sediment”, Watts p 2 ¶Details); a 2nd stage filtration section suitable for removing organic compounds, chlorine, and chlorinated hydrocarbons (“Stage 2 is a five micron carbon block filter that provides a reduction of chlorine, chloramines and other materials that cause bad taste and odors”, Watts p 2 ¶Details); a 3rd stage filtration section suitable for removing yeasts, fermented substances, and polyfluorinated hydrocarbons (“ high quality GAC filter”, Watts p 2 ¶Details); a 4th stage filtration section suitable for removing residual perfluoroalkyl hydrocarbons, cryptosporidium, and viruses (“This semi permeable membrane is 1/10,000 of a micron and will effectively reduce total dissolved solids, sodium and a wide range of contaminants such as arsenic, lead, percolate, chromium, copper and radium. It will also remove over 99.95 percent cysts such as giardia and cryptosporidium”, Watts p 2 ¶Details).
Watts provides motivation for but does not explicitly teach a flow meter, and Watts further suggests a device to measure pressure: “The operating water pressure in your home should be tested over a 24-hour period to attain the maximum pressure. If the incoming water pressure is above 85psi, a pressure regulator is recommended and if over 100psi, then a pressure regulator is required.” (Watts p 8 Col 1).
While Watts teaches a storage tank (Watts p 2 ¶Details “The system is equipped with a 3 gallon capacity storage tank and a high flow chrome designer faucet.”), Watts is silent on an activator.
While Watts provides motivation for including disinfecting processes (Watts p 4 Col 2 Note “Do not use with water that is microbiologically unsafe or of unknown quality without adequate disinfection before or after the system”) Watts does not explicitly teach a centrifuge or a disinfectant agent.
However, Hydrotech teaches an activator storage tank that stores an activator compound or activator solution (Hydrotech p 5 Figure – Brine tank); an activator (Hydrotech p 5 Figure – Brine tank); a pump (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Pump); a transfer line network to transfer water, water-based mixtures, or aqueous solutions (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Pump, check valves, ball valves, pipe, and injection lines); a flow meter to measure liquid flow rates (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Flow Switch); a pressure gauge to measure pressure or pressure changes created by a flow of a liquid through a tube or pipe (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Pressure Switch); at least one settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Retention Tank; Hydrotech p 3 ¶Installation “Retention Tank:… “Contaminants can settle in the tank over time”); a 1st stage purification treating tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Chlorinator); a 2nd stage purification treating tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Multi-Media Filter or Carbon Filter or Water Softener); a disinfectant agent and an oxidizing agent (Hydrotech p 1).
Hydrotech also provides motivation for accurately sizing the pump to match the system need: “When sizing the filtration components in a full line chlorination system, the basic rule for filtration applies - match the pump flow rates to the backwash rates and service flow rates. Remember ‘Bigger is not always better and smaller is not right either.’” (Hydrotech p 5 ¶Sizing the Filters).
Watts is analogous art because Watts is in the same field of 4-stage filtration systems.
Hydrotech is analogous because Hydrotech is in the same field of an integrated multi-stage filtration, oxidation, and disinfection system for water treatment.
It would have been obvious to integrate the Watts filtration system with the filtration/RO system of Hydrotech with the same predictable result of multistage water treatment. Doing so may decrease the footprint of the Hydrotech system while incorporating the Hydrotech disinfection stage recommended by Watts to ensure the safety of the water treatment. The Hydrotech system also provides sensors for regulating flow rate and pressure, as well as valves in the transfer line network to aid in discharge transfer. Utilizing these components improves the ease of regulating the flow rate and volume of water moving through each stage of the system.
The combination of Watts and HydroTech does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches a high speed centrifuge to create a g-force to separate out heavy metal residual chelate-activator complexes and perfluoro alky hydrocarbons from a flow of water (GN p 2 ¶1 “GN Disc Stack Centrifuge … can be used to separate solid and liquid under high-speed centrifugal force”);
GN is analogous art because GN is in the same field of 3-phase centrifugal separations, including for environmental applications (GN p 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the GN centrifuge to allow the system the capability of pre-filtering sediments and particulate, as is a typical concern in water treatment. Doing so would enhance disinfection by reducing the particulate upon which microbes flourish, which in turn would reduce water contamination prior to use. Further, this modification extends the lifetime of the downstream components by reducing wear and blockages.
The combination of Watts Hydrotech and GN does not explicitly teach skid mounts.
However, DC teaches a skid mount designed to house a system (DC p 1 Fig 1 skid mounts housing the centrifuge, this provides motivation to use skid mounts for the combined system); and a stationary platform or base foundation to support the system (DC p 1 Fig. 1 platform supporting the centrifuge system, this provides motivation for the platform to support the combined system).
DC also teaches a pump (DC Fig. 1 schematic symbol for pump on “dirty oil” line); a transfer line network to transfer water, water-based mixtures, or aqueous solutions (DC Fig. 1 schematic symbol for valve on “clean oil” line; “The indicator will display the pressure in the discharge line”, DC p 6 ¶Manual Method); a flow meter to measure liquid flow rates (DC p 5 ¶Reduced Flow-Rate “Any restriction in the discharge line of the centrifuge is a resistance to flow through the line. This resistance causes the flow to reduce. Therefore, any backpressure, intentional or unintentional, causes the flow rate to decrease.”; “Installing a pressure sensor on the outlet line automatically monitors the back pressure. The centrifuge controller has a preset pressure threshold.”, DC p 6 ¶ Automatic Method, thus by measuring backpressure, flow rate is also measured); a pressure gauge to measure pressure or pressure changes created by a flow of a liquid through a tube or pipe (DC Fig. 1 schematic symbol for backpressure gauge on “clean oil” line; “The indicator will display the pressure in the discharge line”, DC p 6 ¶Manual Method or “Installing a pressure sensor on the outlet line automatically monitors the back pressure. The centrifuge controller has a preset pressure threshold.”, DC p 6 ¶ Automatic Method); at least one settling tank (DC p 1 Fig. 1 sludge tank). This DC transfer line network suggests incorporating a centrifuge into a larger treatment system.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) states “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." Thus pump scale would not establish patentability.
DC is analogous art because DC is in the same field of 3-phase centrifugal separations, including pumps, transfer lines, valves, gauges, skid mounts, platforms, and storage and settling tanks (DC p 1 Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to incorporate the GN centrifuge into a larger system using transfer lines, as taught in Hydrotech, as suggested by the DC teaching of a 3-phase centrifuge integrated into a larger system via transfer lines. Doing so would enable sequential processing and removal of waste product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the skid mount of DC to house the combined system. By attaching the system to a skid mount, it becomes easy to relocate while still being stable and secure.
Specifically regarding Claim 19, Watts teaches a water purification system (Watts p 7 Col 1 ¶Introduction “This Watts water treatment system has been designed and tested to provide you with high quality drinking water”) constructed to remove harmful inorganic and organic substances present in lakes, ponds, rivers, oceans, streams, coal ash ponds, mining streams, mining production, industrial, chemical, and municipal wastewater discharges (Watts p 7 Col 1 “This semi-permeable membrane will effectively take out TDS, Sodium and heavy metals such as arsenic, copper, and lead, as well as Cysts, such as Giardia and cryptosporidium”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Watts teaches the activator storage tank is attached to the skid mount, because the activator is a component of the system the skid mount is designed to house (DC p 1 Fig 1 skid mounts housing the centrifuge, this provides motivation to use skid mounts for the combined system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the skid mount of DC to house the combined system. By attaching the system to a skid mount, it becomes easy to relocate while still being stable and secure.
Regarding Claim 3, While Watts teaches a storage tank has a volume capacity in the range from 0.5 gallons to 1000 gallons (Watts p 2 ¶Details “The system is equipped with a 3 gallon capacity storage tank and a high flow chrome designer faucet.”), Watts is silent on an activator.
However, Hydrotech provides motivation for appropriately sizing the conditioning stage tank and storage : “Sizing of the correct model of softener should be done according to the normal three day sizing formula.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to optimize the tank sizing of the Hydrotech activator storage tank by using the size compatible with the Watts system using the motivation of Hydrotech. Doing so would allow for a storage tank of appropriate capacity for the water system needs.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Watts teaches the pump is mounted to the skid mount because the small pump is a component of the system the skid mount is designed to house (DC p 1 Fig 1 skid mounts housing the centrifuge, this provides motivation to use skid mounts for the combined system).
Watts does not teach a transfer line between pump and storage tank.
However, Hydrotech teaches the pump is connected to the activator storage tank via a transfer line network (Hydrotech p 5 Figure – Pump fluidly connected to Brine tank through transfer line network represented with pressure switch, check valves, ball valves, flow switch, and pipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the skid mount of DC to house the combined system, which itself is interconnected with the transfer line network of Hydrotech. By mounting the system to a skid mount, it becomes easy to relocate while still being stable and secure.
Regarding Claim 8, Examiner interpretation is underlined and in bold.
Watts is silent on pumps.
However Hydrotech teaches a pump capable of pumping the activator through the transfer line network (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- system shows the pump which moves liquid through the transfer line network) and an injection line coming from the activator storage tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the injection line of Hydrotech with a pump like that of Hydrotech for accurate conditioner dosing.
Regarding Claim 9, Watts does not teach a settling tank.
However, Hydrotech teaches the settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Retention Tank”).
Alternatively, DC teaches the at least one settling tank is located adjacent to the skid mount (DC p 1 Fig. 1 sludge tank adjacent to the skid mount under the 3-phase centrifuge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a tank like that of Hydrotech or DC for the aqueous discharge of QN, whereby the water effluent of DC/QN is the source for water treatment in the Watt system. Doing so would improve useful product recovery from the DC/QN system.
Regarding Claim 10, Watts does not teach a settling tank.
While Hydrotech teaches the settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Retention Tank”; Hydrotech p 4 ¶User Involvement “The retention tank is sized for a minimum of 20 minutes retention”), Hydrotech is silent on the exact settling tank capacity.
However, GN teaches maximum flow rate of 10, 15, and 25 m3/h (GN p 3 Table – Theoretical Capacity, equivalent to: 2640, 3960, and 6600 gallons/hr or, at a minimum of 20 minutes: 880, 1320, and 2200 gallons, respectively), which when combined with the sizing suggestion of Hydrotech results in a holding volume capacity within 500 to 100,000 gallons. For a system with a downstream settling tank, the tank needs to be comparable or greater than the capacity of the upstream components in order to give adequate time for settling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the holding volume capacity that is relevant and necessitated by the system. Doing so would ensure adequate time for treatment and processing.
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner interprets “organic water compounds” as any compound containing a carbon and present in water.
Watts does not positively teach the composition of the water but provides motivation that the system is used to remove contamination including heavy metals or heavy metal compounds and/or organic water compounds (Watts p 4 ¶Performance- “Removes… Arsenic… Cadmium, Chromium, Perchlorate ”). Watts is silent on the settling tank.
Hydrotech teaches the settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Retention Tank”; Hydrotech p 4 ¶User Involvement “The retention tank is sized for a minimum of 20 minutes retention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the system on water that contains contamination for the purpose of treating said contamination.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Watts teaches the activator capable of being pumped from the activator storage tank via the small pump (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Brine Tank, Injection Line) to the at least one settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Retention Tank) that is configured to hold the heavy metals and/or heavy metal compounds and/or organic water compounds, and chlorinated hydrocarbons (Watts p 4 ¶Performance- “Removes… Arsenic… Cadmium, Chromium, Perchlorate ”).
Regarding Claim 14, Watts does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches the high-speed centrifuge is a liquid-solids,
or a liquid-liquid, or liquid-liquid-solids high speed centrifuge (GN p 2 ¶1 “GN Disc Stack Centrifuge … can be used to separate solid and liquid under high-speed centrifugal force.”) that is capable of transferring the reduced-metal water having a lower concentration of metal via a direct displacement or centrifugal pump (GN p 2 ¶ 2 “Suspension liquid (or emulsion) is fed by gravity usually or a feeding pump into the bowl of the disc Centrifuge.”, GN p 2 ¶3 “For the 3-phase disc Centrifuge, there are two centripetal pumps inside. which can discharge the two immiscible liquid phases having difference densities”) whereby, direct displacement or centrifugal pump is capable of reducing any entrained ligand-metal complexes in the reduced-metal water having a lower concentration of metal (GN p 2 ¶3 “The function of the discs in the disc Centrifuge is to shorten the settling distance of solid particles (or droplets) and enlarge the effective settling area of the bowl in order to greatly improve the production efficiency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the GN centrifuge to allow for the capacity to separate oil and water by density. Doing so would reduce water contamination prior to use.
Regarding Claim 15, Watts does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches the liquid-liquid, or liquid-solids, or liquid- liquid-solids high velocity centrifuge is capable of creating a g-force of at least 1500 g's (GN p 3 Table, Max G Force: 12409, 12273, 12488, or 9063 G) whereby the g-force is sufficient to separate by gravity a reduced metal water stream from any oil/hydrocarbon entrained substance that may be mixed or entrained in the reduced metal water (GN p 2 ¶1 “GN Disc Stack Centrifuge … can be used to separate solid and liquid under high-speed centrifugal force”; GN p 2 ¶ 2 “Suspension liquid (or emulsion) is feed by gravity”, GN p 2 ¶3 “For the 3-phase disc Centrifuge, there are two centripetal pumps inside. which can discharge the two immiscible liquid phases having difference densities”) provided that such oil/hydrocarbon substances have a density of less than 1.0 g/ml.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the GN centrifuge to allow for the capacity to separate oil and water by density. Doing so would reduce water contamination prior to use.
Regarding Claim 16, Watts does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches the liquid-liquid, or liquid-solids, or liquid-liquid-solids high speed centrifuge is capable of separating out any chemical/material substances having a
density greater than 1.0 g/ml from the reduced metal water (GN p 2 ¶1 “GN Disc Stack Centrifuge … can be used to separate solid and liquid under high-speed centrifugal force”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the GN centrifuge to allow for the capacity to separate oil and water by density. Doing so would reduce water contamination prior to use.
Regarding Claim 17, Watts teaches the reduced metal water stream is capable of transfer via a transfer line network through the 1st stage, the 2nd stage, the 3rd stage, and the 4th
stage filtering sections (Watts p 4 Figure); wherein the 1st stage filtering section removes trace heavy metal/chelate materials, debris, and small particulate matter (Watts p 7 Col 1 “The first stage of your RO system is a five-micron sediment filter that traps sediment and other particulate matter like dirt, silt and rust”); the 2nd and 3rd stage -stage filter sections remove organics, chlorine, chloramines, amines, phosphates, protozoa' s, trace heavy metals polyfluoroalkyl substances, and fungi (Watts p 7 Col 1 “The second stage … helps ensure that chlorine and other materials that cause bad taste and odor are greatly reduced”; p 4 ¶Performance); and the 4th stage filter section removes microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, and other lower life cell forms to produce a filtered water stream (Watts p 7 Col 1 “This semi-permeable membrane will effectively take out … as well as Cysts, such as Giardia and cryptosporidium. .. the process of making this high quality drinking water takes time”).
Regarding Claim 18, Watts teaches the filtered water stream is configured to be pumped to at least two stationary holding tanks for final purification to produce a purified water product suitable for human consumption (Watts p 12 Col 1 ¶Step 10 “Measure the blue tube (marked “TANK”) from the RO module over to the tank,…insert the tube into the Quick-Connect fitting on the tank ball valve”).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Watts teaches the activator storage tank is capable of storing the activator (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- Brine Tank).
Modified Watts also teaches the activator storage tank is attached to the skid mount, because the activator is a component of the system the skid mount is designed to house (DC p 1 Fig 1 skid mounts housing the centrifuge, this provides motivation to use skid mounts for the combined system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the skid mount of DC to house the combined system. By attaching the system to a skid mount, it becomes easy to relocate while still being stable and secure.
Regarding Claim 21, Watts teaches the transfer line network (Watts p 9) that carries water between the stage filtering section stages (p 4 Col 1 ¶Features “Adapt-A-Valve™ easily connects to water source for 3/8" compression or 1/2" NPT”; Watts p 4 ¶Features “Proprietary cartridges connect to (and disconnect from) the unit by a simple 1/4 turn”; Watts p 13 Figures).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Watts teaches the pump is a device is a mechanical or digital instrument attached to the 1st stage purification treating tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- system shows the pump attached through the transfer line network to the Chlorinator Tank) wherein the pump has an adjustable flow rate capacity and is capable of pumping the activator to the at least one settling tank (Hydrotech p 5 Figure- system shows the pump which moves liquid through the transfer line network connected to the Retention tank and the lines connected to the Brine Tank).
Regarding Claim 23, Watts provides motivation for but does not explicitly teach a flow meter: “The operating water pressure in your home should be tested over a 24-hour period to attain the maximum pressure. If the incoming water pressure is above 85psi, a pressure regulator is recommended and if over 100psi, then a pressure regulator is required.” (Watts p 8 Col 1).
However, DC teaches the flow meter measures the flow of water through a transfer line network. (“The indicator will display the pressure in the discharge line”, DC p 6 ¶Manual Method or “Installing a pressure sensor on the outlet line automatically monitors the back pressure. The centrifuge controller has a preset pressure threshold.”, DC p 6 ¶ Automatic Method, by measuring backpressure, flow rate is also measured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the DC device in the Watts system to regulate the system parameters for optimal use.
Regarding Claim 24, Watts provides motivation for but does not explicitly teach a pressure gauge: “The operating water pressure in your home should be tested over a 24-hour period to attain the maximum pressure. If the incoming water pressure is above 85psi, a pressure regulator is recommended and if over 100psi, then a pressure regulator is required.” (Watts p 8 Col 1).
However, DC teaches the pressure gauge measures changes in pressure that the flow of water creates as it passes through the transfer line network (“The indicator will display the pressure in the discharge line”, DC p 6 ¶Manual Method or “Installing a pressure sensor on the outlet line automatically monitors the back pressure. The centrifuge controller has a preset pressure threshold.”, DC p 6 ¶ Automatic Method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the DC device in the Watts system to regulate the system parameters for optimal use.
Regarding Claim 34, Watts does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches the high speed centrifuge is a liquid-solids, liquid-liquid, or liquid--liquid-solids high speed centrifuge (GN p 2 ¶1 “GN Disc Stack Centrifuge … can be used to separate solid and liquid under high-speed centrifugal force”) that is capable of receiving a reduced heavy metal water having a lower concentration of metal from the at least one settling tank by a transfer line network (GN p 2 ¶ 2 “Suspension liquid (or emulsion) is fed by… a feeding pump into the bowl of the disc Centrifuge.”), wherein the liquid-solids, liquid-liquid, or liquid-liquid-solids high speed centrifuge creates a g-force from 1,500 g's to 30,000 g's (GN p 3 Table, Max G Force: 12409, 12273, 12488, or 9063 G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the GN centrifuge to allow the system the capability of pre-filtering sediments and particulate. Doing so would reduce water contamination prior to use.
Regarding Claim 35, Watts does not teach a centrifuge.
However, GN teaches the liquid-solids, liquid-liquid, or liquid-liquid-solids high speed centrifuge for water-oil-solid separation is a tubular vertical centrifuge configured to create a g-force from 8,000 g's to 30,000 g's (GN p 3 Table, Max G Force: 12409, 12273, 12488, or 9063 G) configured to separate water into a water stream, an oil stream, and a heavy metals chelate extract (GN p 2 ¶3 “For the 3-phase disc Centrifuge, there are two centripetal pumps inside. which can discharge the two immiscible liquid phases having difference densities…The solids accumulated in the bowl can be discharged through the automatic slag discharge mechanism …Solid-liquid-liquid 3-phase separation or solid-liquid separation can be achieved by using GN Oise Stack Centrifuge”) and capable of producing a reduced-reduced heavy metal water having an even lower concentration of metal that exits a water outlet valve (QN p 2 ¶ 4 “The separated light and heavy phase liquid materials are output by two centripetal pumps of different sizes”; GN p 1 Fig shows liquid outlets capable of valve and transfer line attachment, as indicated by its application in the industries listed below the figure, which require sequential processing), and wherein the oil stream is configured to exit an oil outlet valve (QN p 2 ¶ 4 “The separated light and heavy phase liquid materials are output by two centripetal pumps of different sizes”; GN p 1 Fig shows liquid outlets capable of valve and transfer line attachment, as indicated by its application in the industries listed below the figure, which require sequential processing) to be pumped to an oil containment tank, and the heavy metal chelate extract is capable of being trapped in a bowl located in the tubular vertical centrifuge (GN p 2 ¶3 “For the 3-phase disc Centrifuge…The solids accumulated in the bowl can be discharged through the automatic slag discharge mechanism”); and wherein the reduce-reduced heavy metal water having an even lower concentration of metal is capable of exiting the water outlet valve and being transferred via the transfer line network into the 1st stage filtration section (QN p 2 ¶ 4 “The separated … heavy phase liquid materials are output by two centripetal pumps”; GN p 1 Fig shows liquid outlets capable of transfer line attachment, as indicated by its application in the industries listed below the figure, which require sequential processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the outlets