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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/03/2026 has been entered, 1, 4, 6, 8-11 and 13 are pending, claims 9, 10, 13 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Miyanoshita 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.
In response to applicant’s argument’s arguments that the “partition plate” achieves unexpected effects, and the technical feature specifying that "a flow rate per unit length of a width of the overflow part is 0.2 to 7.0 m2/hr" is not merely an intended use and citing the declaration filed 07/03/2026, this limitation is dependent on the flow rate, which is a variable that is directed to an intended use, and as such not accorded patentable weight. Additionally see modified rejections below.
Response to Affidavit
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/03/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11 based upon the rejections below under U.S.C. 103 because: the flow rate is directed to an intended use, absent clarifications of structural differences over the prior art, the prior art is capable of the recited limitation of flow rate per length; additionally see modified rejections below, in the interest of compact prosecution, alternative rejections are provided based at least in part on optimization of the flow rate, and as discussed in the response to arguments and modified rejections, the flow rate per unit length would be a result effective variable.
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: overflow part in claim 1, interpreted in view of the instant specification to include a plate or equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorden (US PG Pub 2019/0270655), in view of Yamaguchi (US PG Pub 2011/0266227), in view of Goldblatt (US PG Pub 2014/0131259) and Jorden '731 (US PG Pub 2013/0335731).
With respect to claim 1, Jorden teaches systems for optimizing coagulation dosing (abstract, a coagulation treatment device), raw water is mixed with at least one chemical species including flocculants 11a-11d (0052, Fig. 1), a system and method for testing a water sample comprising system 100, mounted at or in any location, coagulation and flocculation in a vessel or conduit (0109-0117, 0133-0145, Fig. 6, 10 conduit 128 a sealed-type reaction tank into which water to be treated having a flocculant added thereto is introduced), a chamber 210 and an instrument 209 (0082, a sampling device comprising: a sampling tank); coagulation 2, flocculation 3, and clarification 4 where solid particles are separation from water (0084, Fig. 1, the coagulation treatment device including a solid-liquid separation tank into which the water to be treated drawn from the coagulation reaction tank is introduced), the embodiment depicted in Fig. 10 collects coagulated liquid downstream of coagulant addition points and uses the system 100 to analyze the samples and includes side-stream reactor 140, similar to the FIG. 6 system, with an attached system 100 (0188, line 13, in Fig. 10, a water sending pipe which sends a part of the water to be treated inside the coagulation reaction tank from the coagulation reaction tank of the coagulation treatment device to the sampling tank), and sensor 110/100 (0148, 0178-0207, Fig. 10-12, 14, a coagulation sensor installed inside the sampling tank).
Applicant amended to require: the sampling tank which has a drain port and a drain pipe at a bottom part of the sampling tank, wherein the drain pipe is connected to the drain port and is provided with a drain valve;
wherein the coagulation sensor is disposed below a position at a water level height of the water to be treated expected in the sampling tank and above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height,
wherein an overflow part determining the water level height is provided inside the sampling tank, and wherein the sampling tank is constituted such that water to be treated retained therein overflows the overflow part and is discharged to the outside of the sampling tank.
Jorden teaches an automated sample jar testing system (0221-0225), where the instrument can be operated in continuous or batch mode (0086), in an embodiment the sample is purged by sample to waste 141 (0189, Fig. 10), and Fig. 11 illustrates a valve 1304 (the sampling tank which has a drain port and a drain pipe at a bottom part of the sampling tank, wherein the drain pipe is connected to the drain port and is provided with a drain valve); turbidity measurement using image/optical sensors (0059-0083, 0148, 0159), the sensors positioned in the lower portion of the chamber below a water level (0195), the system can comprise pumps (0369), and in embodiments the isolation chamber with valves 144/145 which allow continuous full-process in-situ analysis as they pass through the sample volume (0215, Fig. 12), the sampling chamber typically comprises an inlet near its top and an outlet near its bottom, but can be any functionally equivalent shape or size capable of holding the water sample and capable of being understood by anyone skilled in the art (0195), and samples can be prepared, acquired and delivered using other similar processes capable of being understood by anyone skilled in the art using a controller.
Jorden does not teach an overflow part, wherein the overflow part is a partition plate, the sensor above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height, or wherein a flow rate per unit length of a width of the overflow part is 0.2 to 7.0 m2/hr.
Yamaguchi teaches a method and apparatus enabling rapid and automatic determination of the coagulant injection rate in a process of water treatment through coagulation and sedimentation comprising a coagulation analyzer, sample tanks and an automated jar test (abstract, 0007-0022), the sample tank(s) with level control, a detector for measuring flocs, discharge valve 11 and overflow wall 12, overflow tube 17, and determining agglomeration time (0032-0047, 0060, 0074, 0094 Fig. 2, 9, an overflow part that is a partition plate), the height of the overflow must be higher than the water level defined by the height of the overflow wall 12 and a flowmeter 16 detects when the tank is full and the overflow wall may be at different heights in different cases (0080-0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorden’s taught jar testing system to include an overflow wall or tube as described by Yamaguchi as overflows are known in the art for use in jar testing as shown by Yamaguchi, in order to separate froth/clear fluid from settled flocs before discharge, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Examiner notes the limitations with respect to the flow rate are directed to an intended use, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), in the interest of compact prosecution, Jorden teaches samples can be prepared, acquired and delivered using other similar processes capable of being understood by anyone skilled in the art using a controller, and the use of pumps as discussed above, Yamaguchi teaches residence time is determined by the volume of the basin (00)it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the flow rate, depending on the volume of the tanks and a desired residence time to ensure steady state for continuous operation
As the flow rate per unit length is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the flow rate/pump operation, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rate per unit length to obtain a desired residence time (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
While Jorden teaches the sensor positioned in the lower portion of the chamber below a water level (0195), not above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height, the positioning of the sensor would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill, depending on the specifics of the sensor and chamber, as illustrated by Goldblatt and Jorden '731. Jorden '731 teaches a similar system (Fig. 1, 0077), systems and methods for isolating and analyzing a water sample in a water processing facility (abstract), turbidity measurement with instrument 100 using optical sensors (0058-0081), and in embodiments the sensors in various locations including above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height (0174-0180, Figs. 12-17), and Goldblatt teaches determining liquid phase turbidity of multiphase wastewater where a turbidity sensor is placed in a reaction chamber (abstract), sensor 105 located in a upper half (Fig. 2), persons having ordinary skill in the art will understand that the light sensor 105 may be located in other areas of the treatment system 10 to measure turbidity and other types of sensors may be used (0034, 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the sensor above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height, as shown by Jorden '731 and Goldblatt as according to Jorden '731 the embodiment of Fig. 14 provides uninterrupted flow of flow of sample into the sample volume, Goldblatt teaches use of different types of sensors and the location of the sensor are selections made by those of ordinary skill in the art, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is taught above. The limitations of the amount of water through pipes, and retention time are directed to an intended use, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), with respect to limitations of the size of the tank, absent clarification of structural differences the art meets the claim language. In the interest of compact prosecution, Jorden typical data with test times of 15-17 minutes (0289, Fig. 22, retention time of the water to be treated inside the sampling tank is within a range of 1 to 30 minutes.
With respect to claim 6, the device of claim 1 is taught above. As discussed above, Jorden teaches coagulation 2 (coagulation treatment device), conduit 128 (a sealed-type coagulation reaction tank), clarifier 4 (a solid-liquid separation tank, and the sampling device according claim 1).
With respect to claim 11, the device of claim 1 is taught above. Jorden teaches line 13 (Fig. 10, 0188), a water sending pipe as discussed above. While Jorden does not appear to explicitly teach the water sending pipe is disposed above the sampling tank, the location of the input to the sample tank would be an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, as shown by Miyanoshita, Miyanoshita illustrates samples entering tank 10 via a sending pipe disposed above the sampling tank (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sending pipe above the tank as shown by Miyanoshita as supply entering a sample tank from above is known in the art as shown by Miyanoshita and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorden (US PG Pub 2019/0270655), in view of Miyanoshita (JP 2002253904A), in view of Yamaguchi (US PG Pub 2011/0266227), in view of Goldblatt (US PG Pub 2014/0131259) and Jorden '731 (US PG Pub 2013/0335731), in view of Terajima (JP 2009/119338, applicant provided prior art).
With respect to claim 8, the treatment device of claim 6, is taught above. Jorden teaches conventional plants have a settling stage—i.e., clarifier, plate settler, or DAF (dissolved air flotation), but is silent as to the specifics of the settling stage or a mixing chamber and a floating separation chamber provided in a flowing direction of the water to be treated in this order in the solid-liquid separation tank, and wherein the solid-liquid separation tank is further provided with a pressurized water supply part supplying pressurized water having gas pressurized and dissolved therein to the mixing chamber. However, the use recited configuration is known in the art as shown by Terajima. Terajima teaches a dissolved air flotation system where gas is pressurized and dissolved in water to obtain pressurized water (abstract), and an embodiment where tank 90 with agitator 94 flows to flotation levitation tank 50 by pipe 96 and pressurized water producing apparatus is connected to the raw water inflow pipe 53 (Fig. 5, 6, pgs. 5-7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorden’s taught apparatus to include the details of a dissolved air flotation system as described by Terajima as DAF comprising a mixing chamber and a floating separation chamber provided in a flowing direction of the water to be treated in this order in the solid-liquid separation tank, and wherein the solid-liquid separation tank is further provided with a pressurized water supply part supplying pressurized water having gas pressurized and dissolved therein to the mixing chamber as when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571 270-7872. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights