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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “controlling switching between an operating mode …. on the one hand, and a periodic maintenance mode…on the other hand”, the phrase structured as “A on the one hand and B on the other hand” is an idiom and introduces a metaphorical expression into the legal language of the claim.
Examiner suggests reorganizing the quoted passage such that the idiomatic phrase is removed.
An example of such reformatting would be:
“controlling switching between an operating mode and a periodic maintenance mode, wherein the operating mode is for…and the periodic maintenance mode is for …”
Claims 2-12 depend on Claim 1 and are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (See 112 (b) section). 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.
The claim limitations examined under 112 (f) include the following:
Claim
Limitation
Interpretation
Paragraph
1
Overpressure means
Single pump
Group of pumps
Self-priming pump
Pump with overflow valve
pg. 3 ln 7
pg. 3 ln 7
pg. 4 ln 1
pg. 4 ln 2
For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of record, Examiner notes the following claim interpretations (See 112 (b) Section for further discussion):
For Claim 1, “a washing circuit for using water clarified by the water treatment device and accumulated in a tank to perform washing”
“a washing circuit” Examiner interprets as the structural circuit having capabilities to perform both washing and backwashing.
Examiner notes that while backwashing is a cleaning method, it can be considered the reverse of a washing method.
“the water treatment device being wherein it also comprises a command for controlling”
Examiner interprets as “the water treatment device also comprises a command means for controlling”
“an operating mode for producing filtered water comprising applying suction… and applying circulation …and a periodic maintenance mode comprising circulating water”
MPEP 2114 (II) states “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art”.
Examiner interprets “an operating mode” and “a periodic maintenance mode” each as a manner of operating the device.
“ said tank that is placed downstream of a permeate outlet”
Examiner interprets as “ a tank that is placed downstream of a permeate outlet”
For Claim 4 “the washing of the upstream membrane stage comprises backwashing”
Examiner interprets as “said washing circuit to perform washing is capable to perform backwashing”
For Claim 6 “wherein a pump makes it possible to direct said clarified water toward the injection point on the pipe” Examiner interprets as “comprising a pump capable to direct clarified water toward the injection point on the pipe”, in light of Spec p 6 last para.
For Claim 10 “device…wherein the periodic maintenance mode also comprises circulating water toward the downstream stage from said tank to wash said filtration means of the downstream stage” Examiner interprets as “device…wherein the periodic maintenance mode is also for circulating water toward the downstream stage from a tank to wash said filtration means of the downstream stage”. Examiner interprets water as any water and tank as any tank.
For Claim 11, “ device…wherein the periodic maintenance mode comprises washing cycles with said clear water” Examiner interprets as “device…wherein the periodic maintenance mode is for washing cycles with water”
For Claim 12, “A graywater filtration method, comprising using a water treatment device according to claim 1” Examiner interprets as a dependent claim: “The water treatment device according to claim 1 wherein the water treatment device is capable of graywater filtration”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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 1 recites “a downstream advanced barometric purification stage, said downstream stage comprising an overpressure means upstream of a filtration means of the downstream stage”
For clarity of record, Examiner interprets “said downstream stage” and “the downstream stage” both as “the downstream advanced barometric purification stage”
Claim limitation “filtration means” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive.
MPEP 2181 (c) states “the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function”
Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because:
“said filtration means of the downstream (advanced barometric purification) stage comprising a retentate outlet … a permeate outlet of said filtration means of the downstream (advanced barometric purification) stage” includes structure for achieving specified function of filtration of retentate and permeate; dead-end filtration for example, does not have a retentate outlet.
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
“the water treatment device being wherein it also comprises a command for controlling switching between an operating mode for producing filtered water … on the one hand, and
a periodic maintenance mode …, on the other hand.”
It is unclear whether this passage includes positively recited structural limitations
For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of record, Examiner interprets “a command” as “a control means”, in light of Specification p 6 “automaton”.
Examiner interprets “on the one hand….and….on the other hand” as metaphor without antecedent basis or structural limitation.
Claim(s) 2-12 depend(s) on claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 4 recites “the washing of the upstream membrane stage comprises backwashing.”
There is no antecedent basis for the washing.
It is unclear whether “the washing” is equivalent to:
“a washing circuit” structure of Claim 1, such as “the washing circuit…capable of/configured for backwashing” or
a manner of operating a water treatment device
Regarding limitations recited in claim 4 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed water treatment device, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
Claim 6 recites “a pump makes it possible to direct said clarified water toward the injection point on the pipe”
It is unclear if a positively claimed pump was intended, but no structural limitation is claimed.
Claim 9 the overpressure means comprises a pump provided with an overflow valve configured to regulate the pressure at the outlet of the pump.
There is no antecedent basis for the outlet .
Claim 10 recites “The water treatment device…wherein the periodic maintenance mode also comprises circulating water toward the downstream stage from said tank to wash said filtration means of the downstream stage”
It is unclear which water is being referenced (e.g retentate, water to be treated, permeate).
Claim 1 recites “a washing circuit for using water clarified by the water treatment device and accumulated in a tank”
said tank is not positively recited.
Claim 11 recites “the periodic maintenance mode comprises washing cycles with said clear water”
Regarding limitations recited in claim 11 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed water treatment device, it is noted that neither the manner of operating (periodic maintenance mode) a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (clear water) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
There is no antecedent basis for clear water
Claim 12 recites “A graywater filtration method, comprising using a water treatment device according to claim 1”
The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
The antecedent basis for a water treatment device is ambiguous.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0312412 Al, hereinafter Amaral
Regarding Claim 1, Amaral teaches a water treatment device (Abstract) comprising, on a pipestage (318), said downstream stage comprising an overpressure means upstream of a filtration means of the downstream stage (at least 316), said filtration means of the downstream stage comprising a retentate outlet (“The brine is collected and directed to the ERD”, [0017]; Fig. 3), the water treatment device also comprising a washing circuit (100) for using water clarified by the water treatment device and accumulated in a tank (at least any of the tanks in 104 subsystem) to perform washing of said upstream membrane stage periodically (“the UF membranes may need to be cleaned periodically, e.g., by chemicals that are dosed into the backwash water (CEB)”, [0035]; “CEB system 104 can use the RO permeate water … For example, FIG. 3”, [0034]), and the water treatment device comprising a command means (114) for controlling switching (“Control system 114 can control and/or configure system 100…including but not limited to filtration, backwashing and CEB.”, [0024]) between:
Capability for an operating mode for producing filtered water comprising applying suction created by said overpressure means (316) to a permeate outlet of the upstream stage (outlet from 306 to 316) and applying circulation to said retentate outlet in a pipe (outlet from 320 on line upstream of 318) having a reinjection point on said pipe for water to be treated (outlet from 320 on line upstream of 318), on the one hand, and
Capability for a periodic maintenance mode comprising circulating water toward the upstream stage (at least: “the UF membranes may need to be cleaned periodically, e.g., by chemicals that are dosed into the backwash water (CEB)”, [0035]) from a tank that is placed downstream of a permeate outlet of said filtration means of the downstream stage (104; “CEB system 104 can use the RO permeate water … For example, FIG. 3”, [0034]), by said washing circuit, said washing circuit having an injection point (any of the lines from 104 to a point upstream of 316) on said pipe for water to be treated, said injection pointupstream of the overpressure means (any of the lines from 104 to a point upstream of 316), and the reinjection point interfacing with the downstream of the overpressure means (Fig. 3 return line between 316 and 318), on the other hand.
Regarding Claim 3, Amaral teaches the overpressure means is a single pump or a group of several pumps in parallel or in series (at least 316).
Regarding Claim 4, Amaral teaches the washing of the upstream membrane stage comprises backwashing (“first backwashing system configured to treat at least one of the first set of ultrafiltration membranes or the second set of ultrafiltration membranes with brine generated by a reverse osmosis process”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Amaral teaches said filtration means of the downstream stage comprises a reverse osmosis unit (“Abstract; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Amaral teaches a pump capable to direct clarified water toward the injection point on the pipe (312).
Regarding Claim 7, Amaral teaches the upstream membrane barometric clarification stage comprises an ultrafiltration unit (306)
Regarding Claim 10, Amaral teaches capacity for the periodic maintenance mode also comprising circulating water toward the downstream stage from a tank to wash said filtration means of the downstream stage (“rinsing and CIP unit can be configured for periodic deep cleaning of RO/UF membranes”, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 11, Amaral teaches capacity for the periodic maintenance mode comprising washing cycles with clear water (“system configured to treat at least one of the first set of
ultrafiltration membranes or the second set of ultrafiltration membranes with one or more chemicals and reverse osmosis permeate water”, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaral, as applied to the claims above, in view of US 20170121200 A1, hereinafter Brozell
Regarding Claim 2, Amaral discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above
Amaral teaches a clarification module comprising a sealed casing (Individual UF units of 306), within which a membrane is arranged (“The UF system can include ultrafiltration (UF)
membrane(s) to remove fine particulate matter”, [0023]), the casing being supplied at an inlet by a container for accumulated water to be treated (at least 304 containers).
While Amaral is silent to the rigidity of 306, Amaral supports vessels capable of handling pressure in barometric treatment stages: “system 100 can be configured with 8 pressure vessels for 6 elements, with a multiport system that eliminates the need for interconnections. The pressure vessels can be designed for an operating pressure”, [0039].
However, an embodiment of Brozell teaches an upstream stage comprises a clarification module comprising a sealed rigid casing within which a membrane is arranged (“The filter may comprise …a cartridge filter… it may be backwashable”, [0094]),
Amaral and Brozell are considered analogous art because Amaral and Brozell are in the same field of UF/RO systems employing backwash.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize a known filter configuration of Brozell for the 306 UF unit of Amaral to predictably result in a casing that can withstand the operating pressure, temperature, etc anticipated in barometric treatment systems.
Regarding Claim 9, Amaral teaches the overpressure means comprises a pump provided with an configured to regulate the pressure at an outlet of the pump (“A high pressure pumping system 316 can be configured with respect to the RO membranes 318… such a system may include a piston pump and energy recovery device 112 by isobaric pressure exchanger type conjugated with a booster pump 320”, [0038]; Fig. 3). Amaral is silent to an overflow valve.
However, Brozell teaches “MF/UF permeate pressure switch activation of the RO pump, eliminating need for an intermediate equalization tank”, [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to introduce this pressure regulation means of Brozell, eliminating the need for an intermediate equalization tank (Brozell [0107]). Doing so would at least minimize the footprint of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Amaral teaches all the limitations of the water treatment device of claim 1. Amaral is silent to greywater.
However, Brozell teaches capability for graywater filtration using UF/FO systems (“The present invention is directed toward processes and systems to filter and recycle wastewater from sewer water, sanitary sewer water, reclaimed water, and/or greywater”, [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that using the UF/RO system of Amaral applied to greywater would predictably result in successful filtration, as taught by Brozell.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaral as applied to the claims above in view of Aquatec, hereinafter Aquatec.
Regarding Claim 8, Amaral discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. While Amaral teaches a controlled RO Pump (“A high pressure pumping system 316 can be configured with respect to the RO membranes 318. In certain implementations, such a system may include a piston pump and energy recovery device 112 by isobaric pressure exchanger type conjugated with a booster pump 320”, [0038]; Fig. 3), Amaral is silent on whether the pump is self-priming.
However, Aquatrec teaches a self-priming booster pump (“The booster pump is self-priming and whisper-quiet”, ¶2) to be positioned upstream of the filtration means (“The pump should be installed in the feed water line just before the RO unit”, ¶2).
Aquatec is also compatible with control by a pressure switch (“The pump also includes a flexible mounting plate, quick connect water fittings, and a high pressure shut-off switch”, ¶3).
Aquatec is analogous because Aquatec is in the same field of pumps upstream from filtration means.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the specifically self-priming RO pump of Aquatec for the RO pumping system of Amaral. Doing so would improve system applicability to more remote environments with lower pressure water systems (“ Low pressure conditions can often be found with some rural community water supplies, in high-rise apartments, or on private well systems”, Aquatec ¶1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20140059754-A1teaches a device for recycling grey water in a transportation vehicle
US-20200047126-A1 teaches a high recovery integrated UF/RO system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm 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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights