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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/8/2025.
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 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the purification stage." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 2 recites a first purification stage and a second purification stage and it would be unclear if the reception is directed to the first or second purification stage of claim 2 or to a different purification stage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood et al. (US 2011/0197660) in view of Pullman et al. (US 2005/0205496).
Regarding claim 2, Underwood teaches that an apparatus comprising a pump, a water inlet, a first purification stage [0043]), a second purification stage comprising the UV treatment means an the polisher, a dispensing section (22), a recycle line (28) recycling treated water downstream of the dispensing section to downstream of the water inlet but upstream of the pump (Fig. 1). Underwood further teaches the water purification system comprises a device (18) for measuring total organic carbon content, the device located downstream of the UV radiation treatment means and upstream of the polisher, a measurement loop, wherein the measurement loop comprises the second purification stage and the device capable of measuring total organic carbon (Fig. 1 and [0043]-[0060]). It is noted that the supply water stream (10) going into the UV treatment means is sourced from pretreatment means such as filters, membranes and de-ionisers (considered to be the first purification stage [0043]) and as the recycle line connects into the supply water stream (10) which is downstream of the first purification stage, it reads on the limitation that the recycle line bypasses the first purification stage thereby forming the measurement loop.
Examiner considers the inlet to be considered the means of transferring water from the water source to the first purification stage taught in [0043].
Underwood teaches that the recycle line connects to a point between the first and second purification stages thereby bypassing the first purification stage and not at a point between the inlet and a pump upstream of the first purification stage. Pullman teaches a system for treating water wherein the treated water in tank (76) can be recycled to a variety of points in the treatment system such as at the beginning near a water inlet (98) and in between various water purification stages (94 96) in order to provide the treated water wherever deemed necessary, such as dilution, (Fig. 1, [0011]-[0016], and [0037]-[0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide multiple recycle line points in order to provide the treated water wherever deemed necessary.
It is noted that the specific order of the elements of the apparatus claimed to not be explicitly taught in Underwood. For example, pump (12) in Fig. 1 is located after the first purification stage and not before as claimed. However, changes in sequence of elements in an apparatus or method would have been an obvious matter absent a showing of unexpected results associated with said change (Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Further, Underwood discusses that pumps can be used to provide movement of water streams and would be included ([0028]). This is also consistent with Pullman Fig. 1 showing a variety of pumps (14 34 54 90) at various locations throughout the system. Thus, providing a pump prior to the first purification section but after the recycle line addition point would have been an obvious matter in order to ensure water movement through the first purification stage.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, see claim 2 above for placement of the recycle line in terms of pumps and the purification stages. It is noted that the recycle stream in Fig. 1 connects the recycle line to downstream of the first purification stage and upstream of the second purification stage.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Underwood teaches that the first and/or second purification stages include ion exchangers, which would have to be either a cationic ion exchanger or an anionic ion exchanger ([0017]-[0018]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood et al. (US 2011/0197660) in view of Pullman et al. (US 2005/0205496) and further in view of Cobb et al. (US 2018/0186655).
Regarding claim 3, see claim 2 above for changing the sequence of elements in the system. Underwood fails to teach a line for bypassing the first purification system. Cobb teaches that it is known for water purification devices to provide a bypass for the pretreatment means and to flow directly to other downstream treatment modules ([0038]) thereby providing means to a direct treatment means if desired as well as provide a capability to perform maintenance on the pretreatment means. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a bypass line as claimed in order to provide a means to skip the pretreatment means and provide a path to a specific treatment means if desired as well as provide a capability to perform maintenance on the pretreatment means.
Regarding claim 4, Underwood teaches that the various fluid conduits are provided with valves, such as multipath valves ([0014], [0026], and [0029]). While Underwood may not explicitly provide the valves arranged as claimed, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide valves/multipath valves in order control the flow through the various conduits in the system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood et al. (US 2011/0197660) in view of Pullman et al. (US 2005/0205496) and further in view of Mukogawa et al. (US 2002/0134722).
Regarding claim 7, Underwood teaches a UV treatment means for oxidation but fails to specifically teach what type of UV treatment means is provided, such as a low pressure mercury lamp. Mukogawa teaches that low pressure mercury lamps are used in the art as a UV treatment oxidation means. Thus, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the known UV oxidation means in Mukogawa as the UV oxidation means in Underwood as it is a known example, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 in regards to the specific recycle line connections 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 as recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights