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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (JP2020-152091, Filed on September 10, 2020, JP2021-137253, Filed on August 25, 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “for removing halogen oxoacid that is positioned downstream of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus” should be corrected to read “for removing halogen oxoacid, wherein the second storage tank and the second pump are positioned downstream of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus” for grammatical consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA et al. (JP2019013862A, hereinafter KUBOTA) in view of MURAKAMI et al. (JPH0994585A, hereinafter MURAKAMI).
Regarding Claim 1, KUBOTA discloses a water treatment device for making groundwater or well water potable by removing inorganic ions, ammonia, and organic matter, and discloses dosing the water to be treated with hypochlorite, such as sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) (¶¶[0001]–[0002]).
When hypochlorite is added to water containing organic matter, disinfection by-products such as haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes are produced by reaction between the organic matter and the hypochlorite, and it is desirable to remove such disinfection by-products from the water to be treated (¶[0003]).
The treatment adds hypochlorite to the water to be treated and then contacts the resulting haloacetic-acid-containing water with an anion exchanger for removal, and the device correspondingly provides an addition means and an ion exchange treatment means (¶¶[0010]–[0011]).
FIG. 1 illustrates a water treatment device comprising, in order from the upstream side, a pumping means 10 that pumps groundwater W from a well A, a storage tank 20 that temporarily stores the pumped groundwater, and a first addition means 30 that adds hypochlorite to the groundwater, where the pumping means includes a pumping pump 11 and a pumping pipe 12, and the first addition means includes a first storage tank 31 and a first supply pipe 32 joining a first water pipe 21 to supply hypochlorite (¶¶[0017]–[0020]).
The ion exchange treatment means 50 includes an ion exchange tower 51 filled with an anion exchanger, and groundwater W discharged from the activated carbon adsorption tower 41 is supplied via the second water pipe 42 to the ion exchange tower 51 for removal of haloacetic acids and organic substances (¶¶[0022]–[0023]).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of KUBOTA
Activated carbon treatment means 40 is optional when the hypochlorite dose is small, but is preferably placed upstream of ion exchange treatment means 50 or combined therewith to remove hypochlorite and trihalomethanes when hypochlorite generates trihalomethanes or deteriorates the anion exchanger (¶[0045]).
Based on the disclosed system placement, a person skilled in the art would recognize that, when the activated carbon treatment means is omitted for a small hypochlorite dose, the hypochlorite-added water flows directly from the first addition means to the ion exchange tower, such that the ion exchange tower is downstream of the storage tank.
However, KUBOTA does not explicitly disclose “a pump configured to add halogen oxoacid to water to be treated that contains organic materials.”
MURAKAMI discloses an apparatus for producing ultrapure water, including the removal of urea, in a high-purity water system (¶[0001]). During chemical dosing, sodium hypochlorite is injected into a water supply pipe from a sodium hypochlorite solution storage tank by an injection pump 141 (¶[0039]).
The injection pump disclosed by MURAKAMI is a well-known dosing mechanism that provides controlled addition of an additive into a fluid stream. In view of KUBOTA’s water treatment device, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated the injection pump to deliver the hypochlorite from the storage tank into the water pipe with predictable results by providing controlled dosing into the fluid stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the injection pump, as disclosed by MURAKAMI, into the addition means in the water treatment device by KUBOTA.
Regarding Claim 2, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. KUBOTA discloses that when the amount of hypochlorite added is small, the activated carbon treatment means 40 does not necessarily need to be installed (¶[0045]). A person skilled in the art would recognize that when the activated carbon treatment means is omitted, the storage tank and pump dosing assembly is directly connected to the ion exchange treatment means, with no intervening water treatment apparatus having a water contacting portion made of organic materials.
Regarding Claim 3, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. KUBOTA discloses that the groundwater to be treated, after being dosed with hypochlorite by the first addition means 30, is passed through the ion exchange tower 51 filled with an anion exchanger. When the anion exchanger is an anion exchange fiber, the space velocity (SV) is preferably 50 to 1,000 hr⁻¹ (¶[0036]), which falls within the claimed "spatial velocity of 1200 (/h) or less."
Regarding Claim 9, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. The limitation “concentration of divalent anions in the water to be treated is 0.4 mmol/L or less at an inlet of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus” merely describes a property of the incoming water to be treated at the inlet of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus rather than a structural feature of the claimed water treatment system or an operational requirement that the system performs to achieve that concentration. As such, the limitation does not further limit the claimed water treatment system and does not impart patentable weight (In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937; 1963; In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576; 1967).
Regarding Claim 10, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. KUBOTA discloses a water treatment method in which water to be treated having a total organic carbon (TOC) of 1 ppm or more and to which 10 ppm or more of hypochlorite has been added is contacted with an anion exchanger (¶[0010]).
The limitation “mass concentration of halogen oxoacid … is at least 6 times the total organic carbon … at an inlet” is considered a result-effective variable, and KUBOTA demonstrates dosing hypochlorite relative to TOC, such that selecting a corresponding ratio meeting the recited relationship is a routine matter of design optimization. (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 10. The limitation that “the water to be treated contains urea” and that “the total organic carbon … is a concentration of urea … converted into total organic carbon” merely describes a property of the incoming water to be treated and a way of expressing TOC for that incoming water rather than a structural feature of the claimed water treatment system or an operational requirement that the system performs. As such, the limitation does not further limit the claimed water treatment system and does not impart patentable weight (In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937; 1963; In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576; 1967).
Regarding Claim 17, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. MURAKAMI discloses adding hypobromite to water to be treated to decompose urea in a method for producing ultrapure water, including using sodium hypobromite and carrying out the treatment at a position in the system where suitable conditions are already achieved to avoid increasing salt load on an ion removal device, and shows the reaction (NH₂)₂CO + 3BrO⁻ → N₂ + CO₂ + 2H₂O + 3Br⁻ (¶¶[0015]–[0018]). It is reasonable to interpret “hypobromous acid” to encompass the conjugate acid/base hypobromous acid–hypobromite system in aqueous solution, such that adding hypobromite (BrO⁻) under the disclosed pH conditions reads upon the limitation that the halogen oxoacid is hypobromous acid.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA in view of MURAKAMI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SHIMADA et al. (JP2019176069A, hereinafter SHIMADA).
Regarding Claim 4, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. However, modified KUBOTA does not explicitly disclose "wherein the ion exchanger loaded apparatus is non-regenerative."
SHIMADA discloses a gas-dissolved water supply system that supplies gas-dissolved water obtained by dissolving gas in water to be treated (¶[0001]). In particular, the system supplies functional water used for cleaning semiconductor wafers and includes an ion exchange device 3 arranged in series with other treatment units (¶[0009]). Ion exchange device 3 is preferably a non-regenerative cartridge polisher, and more preferably a non-regenerative mixed-bed column packed with cation and anion exchange resins (¶[0010]).
The non-regenerative cartridge polisher configuration disclosed by SHIMADA is a well-known mechanism that eliminates the need for regeneration and associated brine discharge, reduces maintenance complexity, and avoids regenerant leakage risk in high-purity water applications. In view of modified KUBOTA’s water treatment system, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated the non-regenerative cartridge polisher to provide the ion exchange device as non-regenerative with predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the non-regenerative ion exchange configuration, as disclosed by SHIMADA, into the ion exchange treatment means in the water treatment system by modified KUBOTA.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA in view of MURAKAMI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KOLIOS et al. (US20100187175A1, hereinafter KOLIOS)
Regarding Claim 5, modified KUBOTA makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. However, modified KUBOTA does not explicitly disclose “at least a second storage tank and a second pump configured to supply at least a reducing agent for removing halogen oxoacid that is positioned downstream of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus.”
KOLIOS discloses a water treatment system for producing ultrapure water in which a water stream passes through multiple treatment stages to remove inorganic and organic species (¶[0002]).
Hypobromite is used as an effective and economical oxidizing agent, generated by reacting sodium bromide with sodium hypochlorite in water, and is prepared immediately before addition to the water stream due to instability and disproportionation into bromide and bromate (¶¶[0021]–[0022]).
After hypobromite is added and allowed to react for a defined reaction period, a reducing agent is added to convert excess hypobromite and hypochlorite into non-corrosive bromide and chloride ions, which can be removed in downstream stages (¶[0042]). Hydrogen peroxide is used as the reducing agent, reacts completely with hypohalites in a residue-free manner, and may be removed downstream, for example by UV irradiation (¶[0044]).
For supplying the reducing agent, the system includes at least one storage vessel for a reducing agent that reduces hypobromite and hypochlorite, connected to the water stream via a reducing agent feed line downstream of the hypobromite feed line, and includes an oxidation reactor arranged downstream of the hypobromite feed line and upstream of the reducing agent feed line to provide the defined time of action before quenching (¶¶[0050]–[0051]).
The reducing agent disclosed by KOLIOS converts excess hypobromite and hypochlorite into bromide and chloride ions, thereby enabling downstream removal (¶[0042]), and hydrogen peroxide reacts with hypohalites in a residue-free manner and may be removed downstream, for example by UV irradiation (¶[0044]). In view of modified KUBOTA’s upstream hypochlorite addition, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated a reducing-agent addition to quench remaining oxidant after the time of action before subsequent treatment stages.
Regarding the limitation “a second pump configured to supply at least a reducing agent,” MURAKAMI discloses injecting sodium hypochlorite into a water supply pipe from a sodium hypochlorite solution storage tank by an injection pump 141 (¶[0039]). A person skilled in the art would have applied the same dosing-pump approach to supply the reducing agent from the second storage tank into the water stream.
Regarding the limitation “positioned downstream of the ion exchanger loaded apparatus,” based on the above disclosure, a reducing agent is added downstream after a defined time of action to quench excess oxidant. In view of modified KUBOTA’s ion exchange treatment means positioned downstream of the oxidant addition, a person skilled in the art would have positioned the reducing-agent supply downstream of the ion exchange treatment means so the oxidant can act before quenching and any remaining oxidant is removed before subsequent treatment stages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the reducing-agent addition, as disclosed by KOLIOS, after the ion exchange treatment means in the water treatment system by modified KUBOTA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see REMARKS, filed on Jan 07, 2026, have been fully considered, and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been withdrawn due to the amended claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of KUBOTA, MURAKAMI, SHIMADA, and KOLIOS.
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 TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777