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 6/11/2026.
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 and a 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 filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Underwood fails to teach a second purification stage comprising in sequence, a UV treatment means and a polisher. Attention is directed to [0060] that teaches a UV chamber (16) and a polisher (20) in sequence as claimed.
Applicant argues that Underwood fails to teach a device for measuring organic carbon located downstream of the UV treatment means and upstream of the polisher. Underwood [0051] states “while the water purification apparatus 2 is dispensing a purified water stream 22, by measuring the difference in conductivity values between the supply stream 10 (measurable by the first line cell 14) and the post-oxidiser water stream 17 produced by the oxidiser 16 (measurable by the second line cell 18), and knowing the efficiency of oxidiser 16, it is possible to determine the TOC of the supply stream 10 and the concentration of the oxidised species (as TOC) in the water stream 17.” Element 18 provides a measuring means to determine the TOC in the location claimed. It is noted that no limitation in the claim is present stating the TOC is directly or indirectly measured.
Applicant argues that Underwood fails to teach the measurement loop. Claim 2 defines the measurement loop as the second purification stage and the device for measuring total organic carbon and both elements are taught by Underwood.
Applicant argues that Underwood fails to teach a configuration where the water purification flow and/or the recycle line (R) is/are adapted to allow bypassing the first purification stage, thereby establishing the measurement loop. It is noted that Pullman was used to show the recycle lines from a water treatment system are known to connect in a variety of different elements in a water treatment system with specific examples of at the water inlet prior to treatment in the system (98) and between various purification stages (94 96). As such, providing multiple recycle points allows for the treated water to recycled for use in the system as desired to ensure consistency ([0053]) as well as to provide further specific treatment of the recycled water by different treatment means if desired (94 96). Thus, the inclusion of the line back to the beginning of any treatment means (such as the ones stated in [0043] of Underwood) as part of the already taught recycling system would have been an obvious matter as discussed above. The recycling line already taught in Underwood connects after the first purification stage and would effectively bypass the first purification stage thereby reading on the argued limitation.
It is noted that the failure of include TOC measurement by Pullman does not render Pullman non-analogous as Pullman is specifically used to show that it is known in the art to provide the recycle points as claimed in order to ensure the desired flow. Further, one skilled in the art would recognize that recycling to retreat the same fluid would provide the same benefit of treating a fluid with a series of the same elements thereby providing heightened treatment and removal.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 1776
Prosecution Insights