DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are amended.
Claims 19 and 20 are new.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Boodaghians does not teach “a filter system configured to be…supported by the top lid”. This argument is not persuasive because Boodaghians teaches that the filter system (filtering component 12) is supported by the top lid (lid 44) (see fig. 6, the top lid has a port that connects to the filter, as they are connected the filter is “supported” by the lid). The applicant argues that the lid does not “provide a holding function”. This limi9tation is not claimed. The phrase “supported by the top lid” is not limited to the top lid providing a “holding function” for the filter. Any contact between the lid and the filter provides support.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and further in view of Boodaghians (US 2019/0248498, hereafter referred to as ‘496).
Regarding Claim 17:
Boodaghians teaches the system for recycling fluid on board a passenger transportation vehicle, comprising: a grey water reservoir in fluid communication with a lavatory sink, the grey water reservoir comprising an upper opening, a top lid with a fluid inlet for receiving used water (see fig. 6, col. 6 lines 14—16) from the lavatory sink in the grey water reservoir, and further including a vent (vent 62) (see col. 5 lines 40-45, fig. 6); and an outlet for directing used water from the grey water reservoir; (a) a first filtration system (filtering components 12) (see col. 2 lines 38-40) sufficient to treat the used water for recycled use in lavatory toilet flushing (see col. 5 lines 10-15), the first filtration system in fluid communication with the grey water reservoir; wherein the first filtration system and the second filtration system are supported by (in contact through an inlet port) the top lid (see fig. 6) and means (valve 16) for directing used water from the grey water reservoir to the first filtration system (see col. 2 lines 38-50).
Boodaghians does not teach a second filtration system sufficient to treat the used water for recycled use in a lavatory faucet.
‘496 teaches a second filtration system sufficient to treat the used water for recycled use in a lavatory faucet, the second filtration system (electrolysis unit) in fluid communication with a grey water reservoir (see para. 0027, 0028, fig. 3); and means (piping) for directing used water from the grey water reservoir to the second filtration system (see fig. 3, para. 0026, 0028).
Boodaghians and ‘496 are analogous inventions in the art of treating grey water on aircrafts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the second filtration system and piping of ‘496 in fluid communication with the grey water reservoir of Boodaghians because it allows for the production of potable water (see ‘496 para. 0007) and is the simple addition of a known treatment unit to a known system, obviously resulting in the further treatment of the grey water, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and Boodaghians (US 2019/0248498, hereafter referred to as ‘496) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Robert (USPN 4,359,789).
Regarding Claim 18:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 17.
Boodaghians does not teach a third filtration system.
Robert teaches filtration system (recirculation system) configured to receive black water from lavatory toilet flushing and sufficient to treat the received water for recycled use in additional lavatory flushing (see col. 5 line 65- col. 6 line 3, fig. 2).
Boodaghians and Robert are analogous inventions in the art of treating waster for recirculation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the third filtration system (recirculation system) of Robert to the system of Boodaghians because it reduces the need for additional water (see Robert col. 2 lines 14-21, col. 3 lines 1-9) and because it is known to use filtration systems to treat black water for toilet flushing on aircrafts (see Robert col. 3 lines 34-39).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and McCormick (USPN 4,162,218).
Regarding Claim 1:
Boodaghians teaches the system for capturing used water, treating the used water to a determined treatment level to provide treated water, and recycling the treated water on board a passenger transportation vehicle, comprising: a reservoir (fluid reservoir 14) (see col. 2 lines 38-40) in fluid communication with a basin (sink basin) (see col. 3 lines 7-10), the reservoir comprising an upper opening, a top lid (lid 44 covers an opening) including a fluid inlet (inlet 30) (see col. 6 lines 14-15, fig. 6, col. 5 lines 35-40) for receiving used water from the basin and further including a vent (vent 62) (see col. 5 lines 40-45, fig. 6), and an outlet (outlet of valve 16) (see col. 2 lines 42-47); a filter system (filtering component 12) configured to be removably positionable within the reservoir (support allows different media to be used, therefore it is positionable) (see col. 3 lines 48-50) and supported by the top lid (in contact through an inlet port) (see fig. 6), the filter system configured to treat the used water to a determined treatment level to provide treated water ()treated to the level needed for use) (see col. 4 lines 27-31);
Boodaghians does not teach and an adapter (40) positionable at the outlet of the reservoir, the adapter comprising within the adapter a first fluid channel (44) for delivering the treated water to a first location and a second fluid channel (46) for delivering any untreated water or excess treated water to a second location.
McCormick teaches an adapter positionable at the outlet (any location along the outlet line is considered to be “at the outlet”) of the reservoir, the adapter comprising, within the adapter a first fluid channel (one outlet) for delivering the treated water to a first location and a second fluid channel (second outlet) for delivering any untreated water or excess treated water to a second location (see Fig. 1 Annotated below). As there are two paths for the water to exit the adapter there are two fluid channels within the adapter.
PNG
media_image1.png
627
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boodaghians and McCormick are analogous inventions in the art of gray water recycling systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the adapter of McCormick to the outlet of the reservoir of Boodaghians because it allows the water to be sent to multiple locations (See McCormick Fig. 1) and Boodaghians is open to multiple uses for the treated water (see col. 2 lines 44-47, col. 4 lines 27-32).
Regarding Claim 2:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first location comprises a water-using system (toilet flushing) (see Boodaghians col. 2 lines 44-47) or a fluid treatment stack.
Regarding Claim 3:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the water-using system comprises a toilet flush system (toilet flushing) (see Boodaghians col. 2 lines 44-47), a sink faucet, or a potable water delivery system.
Regarding Claim 4:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second location comprises a drain line, a vacuum waste tank, a drain mast, a fluid treatment stack, or any combination thereof. Claims are directed to system, therefore the intended use of the system only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same method. The first and second locations are the intended use of the first and second fluid channels (“a second fluid channel (46) for delivering…to a second location”) not part of the claimed system. As the second fluid channel can deliver to a second location it can deliver to a drain line.
Regarding Claim 5:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim1, wherein the determined treatment level comprises a first treatment level sufficient for use of the treated water as toilet flushing water (toilet flushing) (see Boodaghians col. 2 lines 44-47).
Regarding Claim 6:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determined treatment level comprises a second treatment level sufficient for use of the treated water as potable or drinkable water quality (treatment sufficient to render the water potable) (see col. 4 lines 26-31).
Regarding Claim 9:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim1, wherein the filter system is positioned within the reservoir via a filter holder (filter support 22) (see Boodaghians col. 3 lines 48-50).
Regarding Claim 10:
Boodaghians teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the filter system comprises a mixing pump (Pump P) to enhance water contact time (see Boodaghians col. 8 lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 11:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the filter system comprises a spiral (see Boodaghians col. 6 lines 49-50) or stepped configuration to enhance water contact time.
Regarding Claim 13:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a gas absorbent material positioned within the reservoir to capture and react with exhaust gases released during filtration (see Boodaghians col. 6 lines 14-16).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and McCormick (USPN 4,162,218) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moghimi et al (WO 2020/030943).
Regarding Claim 7:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim1, wherein the filter system comprises a porous polymeric mechanical filter (polymeric filtration structure) (see col. 3 lines 56-58).
Boodaghians does not teach that the filter is a micro filter.
Moghimi teaches treating gray water with a micro filter (microfiltration membrane) (See para. 0007).
Boodaghians and Moghimi are analogous inventions in the art of treating gray water. It would have been obvious to select a pore size for the filter of Boodaghians in the microfiltration range, as disclosed by Moghimi, because it is a pore size range known to be appropriate for treating gray water ( see Moghimi para. 0007) and Boodaghians teaches that the filter can include various sizes depending on what is being filtered out (see Boodaghians col. 3 line 61-col. 4 line 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and McCormick (USPN 4,162,218) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boodaghians (US 2019/0248496, hereafter referred to as ‘496) and Dale (USPN 10,093,560).
Regarding Claim 8:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Boodaghians does not teach wherein the filter system comprises an electrochemical filter (30) comprising a porous anode filter core (34) and a metal mesh cathode (32). Boodaghians further teaches that multiple filtration stages can be used (see col. 3 lines 61-67).
‘496 teaches filtering gray water with an electrochemical filter (electrolysis) (see para. 0021). ‘496 further teaches that any electrolysis method can be used (see para. 0021).
Dale teaches and electrochemical filter (electrolysis unit) comprising a porous anode filter core (semipermeable anode located inward from the cathode) (see col. 2 lines 12-41) and a metal mesh cathode (see col. 3 lines 24-25, col. 3 line 60- col. 4 line 5).
Boodaghians, ‘496, and Dale are analogous inventions in the art of treating water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a electrochemical filter of ‘496 to the filter system of Boodaghians because it is the simple addition of a known treatment step to a known treatment system, obviously resulting in the further treatment of the gray water, with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the electrochemical filter of Dale as the electrochemical filter in Boodaghians (as modified by ‘496) because it is a space saving design (see Dale col. 2 lines 27-31) and ‘496 is open to the use of any electrolysis system (see ‘496 para. 0021). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boodaghians et al (USPN 9,458,028) and McCormick (USPN 4,162,218) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boodaghians (US 2019/0248496, hereafter referred to as ‘496).
Regarding Claim 14:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Boodaghians does not teach an exhaust extraction line (90) for delivering exhaust gases released during filtration out of the reservoir.
‘496 teaches an exhaust line for delivering exhaust gases released during filtration out of a reservoir (gas is directed to different location, therefore there is inherently an exhaust line in order to control the location that the gas is transported to) (see para. 0027).
Boodaghians, as modified, and ‘496 are analogous inventions in the art of treating gray water on an aircraft. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the electrolysis unit and fuel cell, and associated exhaust lines, of ‘496 to the filter system of Boodaghians because it reduces the amount of fresh water needed on a flight, reducing costs (see ‘496 para. 0005) and produces useable products through treatment of the gray water (energy, heat) (see ‘496 para. 0014). Further it is the simple combination of a known filter system and reservoir for treating gray water with a known electrolysis and fuel cell system for treating gray water, obviously resulting in purified water, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the exhaust extraction line delivers exhaust gases to an aircraft outflow valve (piped overboard) (see ‘496 para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 16:
Boodaghians, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the exhaust extraction line delivers exhaust gases to a hydrogen fuel cell (see ‘496 para. 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the “one or more backwash rings that include a circular opening for generating a cleaning vortex…” as required by claim 12. This limitation is not known in the art of gray water filters, therefore one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to modify the inlet restrictor of Boodaghians to “one or more backwash rings that include a circular opening…” Claims 19 and 20 contain allowable subject matter at least because of their dependence on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 1/5/2026