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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 06AUG2025 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06MAY2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 06AUG2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 9, the claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This was not a 112(a) written description rejection (establishing that the inventor was not in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed) or a 112(a) enablement rejection (establishing that the invention is not adequately described that enables the make and use of the invention). The examiner does not dispute that a circulation subsystem that mixes liquid held in a reservoir is conventional. While 35 U.S.C. 112(f) permits a particular form of claim limitation, it cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description, enablement or best mode requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 178 USPQ 486 (CCPA 1973). MPEP 2185.
Nonetheless, the Examiner appreciates the explanation on P7 of the REM pointing the structure in the specification on P9-10.
Any arguments in regards to LLOYD are moot as the reference is no longer relied upon.
The Applicant argues that KONDO does not discloses a release mechanism. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See discharge valve, Fig. 2 #21A and par. [0073] and controller Fig. 2 #17, which controls the discharge valve.
Regarding claim 4, The Applicant argues that KONDO does not discloses a plurality of parameter-adjusting subsystems. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Fig. 6 and par. [0110].
Regarding the intended use of the system (which was argued in context of LLOYD, but will be answered in the context of other references), the amended claims clearly set forth an intended use: “A wastewater treatment system for use with a production system”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the circulation subsystem including a pump having a first inlet valve and a second inlet valve must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a parameter-adjusting subsystem in claim 1 is interpreted as a pH-adjusting subsystem, a temperature-adjusting subsystem, or both (Figs. 1-2, P10/L17-25).
a release mechanism in claim 1 is interpreted as a valve (P5/L17).
a production system in claim 1 is interpreted as a beverage production system (P3/L7).
a pH-adjusting subsystem is interpreted as a pH sensor (P10/L17-20) and a dosing pump (P11/L1-4).
a temperature-adjusting subsystem is interpreted as a temperature monitor (P10/L20-25) and a valve (P11/L13-16).
a circulation subsystem in claim 9 is interpreted as a pump including two inlet valves: one valve accepts incoming waste liquid to be pumped into the reservoir and the other valve initiates a recirculation pathway (C10/L10-12).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9,19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KONDO (US 20030091469).
Regarding claims 1-8, KONDO teaches a waste water treating method and system (title, Figs., abstract) comprising:
a reservoir (e.g. Fig. 6 #51);
a parameter-adjusting subsystem (e.g. Fig. 6 #52,57); and
a release mechanism (e.g. Fig. 2 #21A; par. [0073]);
wherein the reservoir is capable of receiving and holding waste liquid (par. [0067]);
wherein the parameter-adjusting subsystem is capable of measuring a parameter of the liquid under treatment and to treat the liquid under treatment to adjust the parameter (e.g. pH, Fig. 1-2,6 #52,53,52A; par. [0072] and/or temperature; Figs. 2,5-6 #57,58; par. [0108-0110]);
wherein the release mechanism is capable of releasing at least a portion of the liquid under treatment from the reservoir under control of the parameter-adjusting subsystem (par. [0073]).
Note that the limitations “production system”, “beverage production system”, “beverage production process”, “flow rate”, “brewery”, “mobile brewery”, “distillery”, “mobile distillery” sets forth a method and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
See also “drink manufacturing facilities” (par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, KONDO teaches a circulation subsystem (Fig. 1 #14) capable of circulating the liquid under treatment held in the reservoir.
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) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KONDO (US 20030091469).
Regarding claim 24, KONDO is silent as to the circulation subsystem includes a pump; however, it is either inherently anticipated that KONDO has a pump or if not apparent is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for such a pump for the purpose of pressurizing fluid and thus allowing the movement of fluid through the circulation subsystem. Such is common sense and would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of KONDO to include a circulation pump in order to allow the movement of fluid through the circulation subsystem.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONDO (US 20030091469) in view of SHAW (US 6511594).
Regarding claim 25, KONDO does not teach a pump with first and second inlet valves. However, SHAW teaches a high output ozonating apparatus (title, Figs.) including a circulation system (Fig. 1 #10) comprising a first inlet valve (Fig. 1 #78) and a second inlet valve (Fig. 1 #86), which are connected via a T-fitting (Fig. 1 #70) leading to a pump (Fig. 1 #22). While the pump itself does not appear to have two inlets, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide such a pump with two inlets, because it provides for an essentially equivalent function and purpose of merging and pressurizing flows in a circulation system.
It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try various engineering designs choices in the art by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (e.g. combining flow via a mixing valve or a pump) with a reasonable expectation of success by reaching a workable solution in order to provide a suitable circulation system. See MPEP 2141.III.(E).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LEWANDOWSKI (US 3883426) discloses process for treating waste water including a mixing valve (Fig. 4 #23) in a circulation system.
Telephonic Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/Liam Royce/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777