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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Pre–Appeal request (11/11/2025) regarding the Oath and Declaration are not persuasive. Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).
An affidavit of an applicant as to the advantages of their claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for this reason alone. Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (Bd. App. 1982); In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953). MPEP §716.01(c). Here, "[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). As a result, Applicant’s Oath and Declaration is not persuasive.
The Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection are the same as the Examiner’s response below.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/30/2024 with respect to claim(s) 1–10 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that ultrapure water is the liquid in question. Yokoi teaches an ultrapure water system. Applicant further argues that it was newly discovered that “a small amount of air infiltrates.” Applicant states that this is due to the negative pressure in the system versus the atmospheric pressure external to the system. Thus, requiring a second pressure regulator. The Examiner disagrees.
It is inherent that the Yokoi–Li combination teaches “the pressure difference in the pipe caused by the height difference of the pipe downstream of the second position is reduced, and the deformation of the pipe caused by the negative pressure acting on the pipe and the inflow of the atmosphere into the return pipe can be suppressed” which Applicant argues that the Yokoi–Li combination lacks. In designing a fluid system, in this case, an ultrapure liquid recovery system, multiple elements must be taken into consideration. Such as the building configuration, intervening components, the pipe diameter, fluid flow, and height which includes 10m. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would inherently meet the above claimed condition if the building design necessitates.
Wu is introduced to address the new limitations.
Please see the rejection below for further details.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Line 15 includes numeral reference “32.” Either reference numerals should be included for all limitations or none.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (USPN 10138149 B2) in view of Wu (CN 201810574651 A–Translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Yokoi Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi discloses a liquid recovery system comprising: a tank (11) that stores a liquid and that is
Wu teaches a first pressure regulating unit (4) and a second pressure regulating unit (6) in order to ensure proper pressure conditions (Para. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the return line of Yokoi with two pressure regulating units as taught by Wu in order to manage the pressure.
Per the Yokoi–Wu combination, Wu’s first pressure regulating unit is located on Yokoi’s line 22 adjacent to the point of use (33). Wu’s second pressure regulating unit is located on Yokoi’s line 22 adjacent to the tank (11).
The Yokoi–Wu combination teaches a first pressure regulating unit that is positioned at a first position along the pipe (Yokoi Annotated Fig. 1), and that regulates a first pressure upstream of the first position; and a second pressure regulating unit that is positioned at a second position downstream of the first position of the pipe, along the pipe and vertically below the first position, and that regulates a second pressure downstream of the first position and upstream of the second position (Yokoi Annotated Fig. 1).
The limitation “wherein the tank has a water level and the vertical difference between the use point and the water level is at least 10 meters” is a design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a water height based upon the physical arrangement of the building. In designing a fluid system, in this case, an ultrapure liquid recovery system, multiple elements must be taken into consideration. Such as the building configuration, intervening components, the pipe diameter, fluid flow, and height which includes 10m. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would inherently meet the above claimed condition if the building design necessitates.
Regarding Claim 2, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the first position is above a central portion of the pipe in a vertical direction, and the second position is below the central portion. Yokoi Annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the Yokoi–Wu combination does not explicitly teach the second position is at a height equal to or lower than a water level of the tank in a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the piping, valving, instruments and components, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 4, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the second position is at a height at which a downstream pressure is positive and constant. Yokoi Annotated Fig. 1. Here, there are no intervening parts that create negative pressure. Furthermore, the piping is vertical, thus influenced by gravity. As a result, the pressure is positive.
Regarding Claim 5, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the first pressure regulating unit regulates the first pressure so that the first pressure is a predetermined upstream pressure. In Wu figure 1, a pressure sensor (5) is located upstream of the first pressure regulating unit (4). The pressure downstream Wu’s first pressure regulating unit is required to be a predetermined pressure. As a result, Wu’s first pressure regulating unit must adjust the upstream pressure according to the downstream pressure. Wu’s first pressure regulating unit communicates with Wu’s pressure sensor (5). Therefore, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the first pressure regulating unit regulates the first pressure so that the first pressure is a predetermined upstream pressure.
Regarding 6, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the second pressure regulating unit regulates the second pressure so that the second pressure is a predetermined intermediate pressure. Where the incoming pressure to Wu’s second pressure regulating unit is decreased by pressure drop in the lines and intervening components. Thus, Wu’s second pressure regulating unit would have a lower upstream pressure which is lower than , Wu’s first pressure regulating unit. Therefore, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches the second pressure regulating unit regulates the second pressure so that the second pressure is a predetermined intermediate pressure
Regarding 7, the Yokoi–Wu does not explicitly teach the second pressure regulating unit regulates the second pressure so that a difference between the second pressure and an atmospheric pressure is a predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the second pressure regulating unit regulates the second pressure so that a difference between the second pressure and an atmospheric pressure is a predetermined value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This predetermined value is based upon the conditions in which the system is located, as well as the system conditions. Based upon the designer needs, a designer would determine the pressure within the system, determine the desired pressure output and adjust the second pressure regulating unit to adjust to the difference in those two values.
Regarding 8, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches a primary pure water device (Yokoi Col. 8, Line 56 through Col. 9, Line 5) that processes the liquid stored in the tank; and a use supply path (Yokoi Line 56 through Col. 9, Line 5) that supplies pure water to the tank (Yokoi Line 56 through Col. 9, Line 5); a secondary pure water device that processes the pure water stored in the tank (Yokoi 13/14/15/16); and a use supply path that supplies the pure water processed by the secondary pure water device to the use point (Yokoi 21).
Regarding 9, the Yokoi–Wu combination teaches a reprocessing device that performs primary processing of raw water; and a primary supply path through which a primary processed liquid processed by the preprocessing device is supplied to the tank. Yokoi Col. 5, Line 64 through Col. 6, Line 12.
Regarding Claim 10, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 1 and 7. Accordingly the method steps recited in claim 10 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Yokoi–Wu combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights