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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-14 are pending in the application, claims 9, 10 ,13 ,14 are withdrawn. The 112(b) rejections previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the position of the sensor and the overflow 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.
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, 12 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).
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 the sample is purged by sample to waste 141 means and the reactor is cleaned and prepared for next sample cycle (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); and 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).
Jorden does not teach an overflow part, or the sensor above a position at a height corresponding to half the water level height, Jorden teaches an automated sample jar testing system (0221-0225), Miyanoshita teaches a jar tester to determine adequate flocculating conditions (abstract, 0017), comprising a drain valve 12 for drainage and an overflow which sets the sample water level in the container (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), and a turbidity meter 18 arranged in the upper part of the container, and is a scattering type or transmitted type (0017-0029, 0037, sensor 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), coagulation tank 30, flocculant tank 32, settling pond 36 (0030-0032).
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 as described by Miyanoshita as overflows are known in the art for use in jar testing as shown by Miyanoshita in order to set the water level to a fixed position (0021), and sensor in the upper portion of the tank depending on the type of sensor (0028), and the use of overflows and sensors in the upper portion of sampling tanks 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.
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.
With respect to claim 12, the device of claim 1 is taught above. 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), with respect to limitations dimensions of the overflow part, absent clarification of structural differences the art meets the claim language.
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 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
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 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, 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights