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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed December 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-10 are amended and claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending and further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner modifies the grounds of rejection set forth in the office action filed October 7, 2025.
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 1-5 and 7-9 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 “wherein space velocity of water to be treated that flows in a final-stage ion exchange apparatus is 170 (l/hr) or more”, “wherein the at least one ion exchange apparatus includes an upstream ion exchange apparatus that is provided on the ultrapure water supply line upstream of the final-stage ion exchange apparatus”, “wherein the final-stage ion exchange apparatus includes at least one ion exchange tower”, and “wherein the ion exchange towers of the final-stage ion exchange apparatus through which the water to be treated flows are fewer in number than the ion exchange towers of the upstream ion exchange apparatus”. However, it is unclear whether “a final stage ion exchange apparatus” is a structural limitation of the ultrapure water production system. While claim 1 limits the final-stage ion exchange apparatus as having a desired space velocity, an ion-exchange resin, and provided as fewer ion exchange towers than the at least one ion exchange apparatus, claim 1 is silent with respect to the final-stage ion exchange apparatus being a structural feature of said ultrapure water production system.
Due to this ambiguity, the final-stage ion exchange apparatus is not interpreted to provide structural patentable weight to the claim and will only be addressed as a functional feature which the prior art must be capable of performing, specifically the capability of providing ultra-pure water to a final-stage ion exchange apparatus, an interpretation consistent with the previous office action and the rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Yano et al., US 2016/0233082 (Yano, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Yano discloses a method for producing ultrapure water using an ultrapure water production system (abstract, figs. 1-4), the system comprising:
An ultrapure water supply line (conduits between subsystem components) connected to a point of use (see “To Treatment chamber”, fig. 1) and configured to supply ultrapure water to said point of use;
A return line (see ‘recirculation line’ downstream from the point of use and REF 9a, fig. 3) for returning unused ultrapure water to the ultrapure water supply line; and
At least one ion exchange apparatus (see “Non-regenerative ion-exchange equipment”, fig. 1) provided on the ultrapure water supply line and containing ion exchange resins (see “cartridge polisher”, ¶ 0004);
Wherein the at least one ion exchange apparatus includes an upstream ion exchange apparatus provided on the ultrapure water supply line (see “Non-regenerative ion-exchange equipment”, fig. 1);
The method comprising supplying water to be treated to a final-stage ion exchange apparatus (REF 21, figs. 2, 4, ¶ 0156-0157) at a space velocity of 170/hr or more (¶ 0261), wherein the final-stage ion exchange apparatus is an ion exchange apparatus that is closest to the point of use from among the at least one ion exchange apparatus (REF 21, figs. 2, 4, see “catalytic unit 21 may be disposed…in the treatment chamber 2”, ¶ 0157).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano in view of Tokoshima, US 2011/0180491 (Tokoshima).
Regarding claim 1, Yano discloses an ultrapure water production system (figs. 1-4, ¶ 0004) comprising:
An ultrapure water supply line (conduits between subsystem components) connected to a point of use (see “To Treatment chamber”, fig. 1) and configured to supply ultrapure water to said point of use;
A return line (see ‘recirculation line’ downstream from the point of use and REF 9a, fig. 3) for returning unused ultrapure water to the ultrapure water supply line; and
At least one ion exchange apparatus (see “Non-regenerative ion-exchange equipment”, fig. 1) provided on the ultrapure water supply line and containing ion exchange resins (see “cartridge polisher”, ¶ 0004);
Wherein the at least one ion exchange apparatus includes an upstream ion exchange apparatus provided on the ultrapure water supply line (see “Non-regenerative ion-exchange equipment”, fig. 1).
Elements drawn to “a final-stage ion exchange apparatus” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide fluidic channels and interconnections throughout the system (figs. 1-13), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable and configured to provide the recited final-stage ion exchange function.
Yano does not disclose the at least one ion exchange apparatus comprising a plurality of ion exchange towers arranged in parallel. However, Tokoshima discloses a water treatment system (abstract, fig. 2) comprising a plurality of ion exchange towers (REF 41, 42, fig. 2, ¶ 0053) arranged in parallel.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Yano to provide a plurality of ion exchange towers arranged in parallel as described in Tokoshima in order to allow continuous water treatment while an ion exchange tower is taken off-line for regeneration, refurbishment, and/or replacement (Tokoshima, ¶ 0096-0098).
Regarding claims 2-3, elements drawn to “the final-stage ion exchange apparatus” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide fluidic channels and interconnections throughout the system (figs. 1-13), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable and configured to provide the recited final-stage ion exchange function.
Regarding claim 4, Yano (in view of Tokoshima) discloses a system further comprising a microfiltration filter membrane (REF 22, figs. 2, 4, ¶ 0160). Additionally, elements drawn to “the final-stage ion exchange apparatus” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide fluidic channels and interconnections throughout the system (figs. 1-13), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable and configured to provide the recited final-stage ion exchange function.
Regarding claim 5, Yano (in view of Tokoshima) discloses a system wherein water to be treated flows through the upstream ion exchange apparatus (see “non-regenerative ion-exchange equipment”, fig. 1).
Elements drawn to the recited “space velocity” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide a flow rate through the system, where flow rates encompass a space/linear velocity of 200-20000/hr (¶ 0261), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable of the recited functional feature.
Regarding claim 7, Yano (in view of Tokoshima) discloses a system wherein the upstream ion exchange apparatus comprises an ion exchange tower having a height of ion exchange resin (see “cartridge polisher”, ¶ 0004). Additionally, elements drawn to “the final-stage ion exchange apparatus” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide fluidic channels and interconnections throughout the system (figs. 1-13), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable and configured to provide the recited final-stage ion exchange function.
Regarding claim 8, Yano (in view of Tokoshima) discloses a system further comprising a microfiltration filter membrane (REF 22, figs. 2, 4, ¶ 0160) positioned upstream of the final-stage ion exchange apparatus (REF 21, figs. 2, 4, see “catalytic unit 21 may be disposed…in the treatment chamber 2”, ¶ 0157). Additionally, elements drawn to “the final-stage ion exchange apparatus” are interpreted as functional aspects of the system, there being no component, controller, or alternative structural feature providing the recited function. Since the prior art is shown to provide fluidic channels and interconnections throughout the system (figs. 1-13), the examiner considers said prior art to be capable and configured to provide the recited final-stage ion exchange function.
Regarding claim 9, Yano (in view of Tokoshima) is relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tokoshima as seen above.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the recited space velocity is not found persuasive. Space velocity necessarily requires a flow rate and relies on an amount of resin within the ion exchange device. While a device can have structural features which provide a flow rate (i.e. pump and/or controller), said device does not have a flow rate itself. Only when the device is used or programmed to be used will it provide a recited flow rate. Therefore, the examiner maintains that applicant’s current recitation of “space velocity” is purely functional without a structural counterpart.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, the examiner directs applicant’s attention to the rejections set forth above in which Yano is shown to anticipate each and every feature recited in claim 10. Yano discloses the ultrapure water supply line, return line, ion exchange apparatus, and final stage ion exchange apparatus, where the space velocity is at least 170 l/hr (see above). The examiner maintains Yano anticipates this method claim.
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 DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779