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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 1 recites “(1) at least two vessels … or (2) the at least two banks of vessels” and “at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels)”. It is respectfully requested that claim 1 be amended to recite consistent claim language, such as “(1) the at least two vessels or (2) the at least two banks of vessels”. Similar amendments are respectfully requested for dependent claims 8-12.
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 1-18 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 “a pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) have been replaced at least once”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. On its face, the language appears to indicate all of the resin beds of the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels). However, in the previous claim set dated December 30, 2025, claim 28 recites “the pre-determined period of time runs until all of the resin beds have been replaced with fresh resin at least once”, which clarified the number of resin beds, i.e. “all of the resin beds”, as well as indicated that the replacement was for fresh resin. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the “runs until” is for all of the resin beds and if the “replaced at least once” is for replacement with fresh resin.
Claims 3-18 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 3 recites “the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is at least 20% ..., faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel”. Claim 3 is deemed indefinite because the “the specific flow rate … through the resin bed in the second vessel” is dependent upon an unknown element, i.e. “the specific flow … through the resin bed in the first vessel”. Claims 4, 5 and 11 are also rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “for a pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds” and “for the pre-determined period of time, the volumes of the resin beds”. Each of these limitations is understood as being for all of the resin beds in each vessel or bank of vessels present within the claimed method.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060144780 A1 (hereinafter US 780).
Regarding claim 1, US 780 discloses a method for controlling the amount of leakage of other contaminants from resin beds during a water purification process to no more than a pre-determined amount (see US 780 abstract, figures 2-3; paragraphs 0010-0015, 0034, 0062).
Herein, perchlorate is understood to be an “other contaminant”.
It is understood that “a pre-determined amount” may be any amount. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
US 780 discloses providing (1) at least two vessels for water purification, including a first vessel and a second vessel, or (2) at least two banks of vessels for water purification, including a first bank of vessels and a second bank of vessels; each vessel including a resin bed (see US 780 abstract, claims 1, 2, 17; figure 1; paragraphs 0011, 0017, 0041-0042).
It is noted that US 780 discloses a plurality of vessels, each containing a resin having an affinity for perchlorate, which is deemed the other contaminant.
Either of the vessels or grouping of vessels is understood to be the first vessel or first bank of vessels and the other vessel or grouping of vessels is understood to be the second vessel or second bank of vessels.
US 780 discloses starting the water purification process by passing a water source containing other contaminants simultaneously and in parallel through the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) (see US 780 abstract; figure 1; claims 1 & 17; and paragraphs 0012, 0036-0038, 0041, 0043, 0045).
US 780 discloses for a pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) have been replaced at least once, the specific flow rates for passing the water source through the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5% (see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0042, 0046, 0053, 0062). US 780 discloses “no single vessel is being fed more than about 20% or the total amount of perchlorate contaminated water” (see US 780 paragraph 0017). US 780 discloses that “Piping design can ensure even flow distribution between all vessels. However as can be seen in the relation above, minor flow variations in each vessel will have very little influence on the total effluent water quality” (see US 780 paragraph 0044). US 780 is understood as acknowledging a variation in the flow rate through the various vessels, which is understood to be differing flow rates.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to calculate the specific flow rate. The specific flow rate is a known metric calculated by the volume of fluid passing through a filter medium per unit of time and surface area. US 780 discloses flow rate , volume of resin beds and gallons per minute per square foot of resin bed area (gpmft2) (see US 780 paragraphs 0029, 0042). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate a specific flow rate of the system of US 780 because it would assist with one of ordinary skill in the art understanding the operating conditions and/or efficiency of the system.
In the alternative, if US 780 does not disclose a “the specific flow rates for passing the water source through the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5%”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 780.
US 780 discloses that flow rate is a result effective variable (see US 780 paragraph 0042). Without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow rate of each individual vessel, which as acknowledged by US 780 will have variation in the flow rate through the various vessels, cannot be considered critical. Thus, a difference of at least 5% cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed flow rates of US 780. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate through each of the vessels (either a first and second vessel or a first banks and second banks of vessels) and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
US 780 discloses the system is a multibed configuration that has staggered points on each vessel’s breakthrough curve (see US 780 paragraph 0043; see also US 780 figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flow rate of each vessel of US 596 because it would assist with achieving a staggered breakthrough point on each breakthrough curve, and/or because it would assist with achieving a staggered configuration of exhausted/spent vessels.
US 780 discloses for the pre-determined period of time, the volumes of the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5% (see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0043, 0045, 0062 and figures 2-4). US 780 discloses multibed configuration that has staggered points on each vessel’s breakthrough curve (see US 780 paragraph 0043; see also US 780 figures 2-4). US 780 discloses “it is desirable to fill the beds substantially completely full, that is at least about 50% by volume full and more commonly at least about 75% full and preferably at least about 85% or even at least 90% full” (see US 780 paragraph 0029). US 780 is understood as acknowledging a variation in the volume of resin beds in the various vessels as being between 50% to 90% full.
In the alternative, if US 780 does not disclose a “the volumes of the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5%”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 780.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 780 by having a volume of resin bed differ between at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) prior to operation of the water purification process because it would assist with achieving a staggered breakthrough point on each breakthrough curve, and/or because it would assist with achieving a staggered configuration of exhausted/spent vessels. US 780 discloses a difference in filled resin in each vessel from 100 % to at least 50% by volume full (see US 780 paragraph 0029). Thus, prior to operation, vessels in the multibed configuration will have differing volumes of resin bed that can function to remove perchlorate from water.
US 780 discloses the amount of leakage of other contaminants is the combined weighted average of leakage from the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) (see US 780 paragraph 0062).
In the alternative, if US 780 does not disclose “the amount of leakage of other contaminants is the combined weighted average of leakage from the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels)”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 780.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 780 to calculate or determine leakage because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with addition information about the operation of the system and/or because it would assist with understanding whether a vessel/group of vessels needs to be replaced or has reached a breakthrough.
Regarding claim 3, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 3 is deemed indefinite. Claim 3 is understood as “the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel”.
US 780 discloses the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0042, 0053, 0062).
Regarding claim 4, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is about twice as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (see rejection of claims 1 and 3).
In the alternative, if US 780 does not disclose “the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is about twice as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 780.
As established in rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate through each of the vessels (either a first and second vessel or a first banks and second banks of vessels) and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 780 to have a the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel is about twice as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel because it would assist with achieving a staggered breakthrough point on each breakthrough curve, and/or because it would assist with achieving a staggered configuration of exhausted/spent vessels.
As discussed above, the first vessel or first bank of vessels and the second vessel or second bank of vessels may be either vessel or grouping of vessels in US 780. Thus, when a vessel or grouping of vessels is treating raw water and the valve of the other vessel or grouping of vessels is closed, then the flow rate of the initial vessel or grouping of vessels would be understood to be 100% greater than the subsequent vessel or grouping of vessels.
Regarding claim 5, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780 discloses the volume of resin bed in the second vessel is at least 5% bigger than the volume of resin bed in the first vessel (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0043, 0045, 0062 and figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the resin bed includes PFAS ad/ab-sorbing material (see US 780 paragraphs 0031-0032).
While US 780 does not disclose the resin material will ad/ab-sorb PFAS, US 780 discloses a material comprising an ion exchange resin/resin bed. The material of US 780 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 7, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the resin bed is an ion exchange resin (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780 discloses after the pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) have been replaced at least once (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0013-0014, 0046 (US 780 discloses that the step of replacing spent resin with fresh resin is repeated throughout the method of treating raw water (see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0013-0014, 0046).).
US 780 discloses the specific flow rates of the water source through the resin beds is substantially the same (see US 780 paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 9, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780 discloses after the pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) have been replaced at least once (see rejection of claims 1, 8; see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0013-0014, 0046).
US 780 discloses the volumes of the resin beds are substantially the same (see US 780 paragraphs 0029, 0045).
Regarding claim 10, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further US 780 discloses the method includes at least three vessels (or three banks of vessels), including in any order: a first vessel (or first bank of vessels), a second vessel (or second bank of vessels), and a third vessel (or third bank of vessels) (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 abstract, figure 1 and paragraphs 0017, 0041).
Regarding claim 11, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780 discloses the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel (or second banks of vessels) is at least 20% faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (or first banks of vessels); and the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the third vessel (or third bank of vessels) is at least 20% faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel (or second bank of vessels) (see rejection of claims 1, 3, 4).
As established in rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate through each of the vessels (either a first and second vessel or a first banks and second banks of vessels) and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 780 discloses the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel (or second bank of vessels) is about twice as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (or first bank of vessels), and the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the third vessel (or third bank of vessels) is about three times as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (or first bank of vessels) (see rejection of claims 1, 4 and 10).
As established in rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate through each of the vessels (either a first and second vessel or a first banks and second banks of vessels) and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 780 to have the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel (or second bank of vessels) is about twice as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (or first bank of vessels), and the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the third vessel (or third bank of vessels) is about three times as fast as the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the first vessel (or first bank of vessels) because it would assist with achieving a staggered breakthrough point on each breakthrough curve, and/or because it would assist with achieving a staggered configuration of exhausted/spent vessels.
Regarding claim 13, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 does not disclose the resin beds are replaced with fresh resin after about 12 to 48 months.
However, US 780 discloses replacing spent or exhausted resin with fresh resin (see US 780 claims 1 & 17 and paragraphs 0014 and 0059). US 780 discloses that, in the example, “replaceable resin beds have a resin life of approximately 75,000 bed volumes. This corresponds to 120 days of continuous operation for each bed if flowing at the expected capacity for this facility (800 gpm)” (see US 780 paragraph 0061). US 780 discloses that the “the size of the multiple vessels could be increased to the multiple thousands of gallon size” (see US 780 paragraph 0041).
The replacement with fresh resin in US 780 may occur any time after resin has become spent or exhausted, such as after 120 days of continuous operation (see US 780 paragraph 0061), which would include 12 to 48 months later. Further, if the system is not used continuously, then the time for replacement may be extended past 120 days. Alternative, the sizing of the vessels may be increased to “multiple thousands of gallon size” (see US 780 paragraph 0041) and the moment when replacement is needed may be increased several months, such as 12 to 48 months later.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and method of US 780 to increase the number of vessels and/or the size of each vessel because it would allow the system to run continuously for a longer period of time, such as 12 to 48 months, because it would reduce the cost of obtaining fresh resin and/or because it would reduce the need to load and unload the resin (resin replacement truck) (see US 780 paragraph 0057-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and method of US 780 to increase the number of vessels treating raw water, in order to increase the days/months of operation of the system because it would reduce the cost of obtaining fresh resin and/or because it would reduce the need to load and unload the resin (resin replacement truck) (see US 780 paragraph 0057-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and method of US 780
Regarding claim 14, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the contaminants include nitrates (see US 780 figures 2-4paragraphs 0034, 0036).
Regarding claim 15, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the resin beds include strong base anion exchange resins in either the chloride form (see US 780 paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0033, 0039).
Regarding claim 16, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780 discloses the vessels are of similar size or volume (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1 (as noted above, claim 17 is understood to be dependent upon claim 16). Further, US 780 discloses the size or volume of the vessels differ by no more than 10% (see rejection of claim 16).
The claimed range “no more than 10%, preferably by no more than 5%” includes zero.
Regarding claim 18, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1 (as noted above, claim 17 is understood to be dependent upon claim 16). Further, US 780 does not disclose the specific flow rates are measured in bed volumes per hour (BV/h).
However, US 780 discloses the gallons per minute (see US 780 paragraphs 0043, 0052, 0053, 0061). One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to convert gallons per minute (gpm) to bed volumes per hour (BV/h).
Claims 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 780 as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Zaggia, A., Conte, L., Falletti, L., Fant, M. and Chiorboli, A., 2016. Use of strong anion exchange resins for the removal of perfluoroalkylated substances from contaminated drinking water in batch and continuous pilot plants. Water research, 91, pp.137-146 (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 6, US 780 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780 discloses the resin bed includes PFAS ad/ab-sorbing material.
NPL discloses that strong anion exchange resins are used for the removal of PFAS from drinking water in an ion exchange system (see NPL abstract, page 137/section Introduction, page 138/section 1.2; page 139/section 2.3 & 3.1; page 140 table 3; page 142/table 4 & section 3.4.1; page 143/table 5; page 145/section 4). NPL discloses three strong anion exchange resins, i.e. Purolite A600E, A520E and A532E (see NPL abstract; page 140 table 3; page 142/table 4 & section 3.4.1; page 143/table 5).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. ion exchange system; removal of contaminants, such as PFAS, from drinking water.
NPL is evidence that the strong base resins of US 780 of which Purolite A-600 is cited by both NPL and US 780, is capable of sorbing PFAS.
Regarding claim 15, US 780 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 780 in view of NPL discloses the resin beds include strong base anion exchange resins, optionally comprising styrene-divinylbenzene gel resins, wherein the ionic form is selected from the group consisting of chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate and mixtures of two or more of these forms (see US 780 paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0033, 0039 and see NPL abstract; page 140 table 3; page 142/table 4 & section 3.4.1; page 143/table 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the indefiniteness rejection.
The indefiniteness rejections have been partially withdrawn and partially maintained and revised in light of Applicant’s claim amendments.
The obviousness rejection of US 780 has have been maintained. The obviousness rejection of US 780 in view of US 631 has been withdrawn.
In the response, it was argued that claims 3, 4, 5, and 11 are not indefinite because “each of claims 3, 4, 5, and 11 recite that the specific flow rate of the second vessel is relative to the specific flow rate of the first vessel. Therefore, the specific flow rate of the second vessel can be clearly determined”. This argument is deemed unpersuasive since the specific flow rate of the first vessel remains an unknown element.
In the response, it was argued that US 780 “fails to disclose ‘the specific flow rates for passing the water source through the resin beds in the at least two vessels ( or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5%’ and ‘the volumes of the resin beds in the at least two vessels ( or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5%’ as claimed” and “Jenson reference does not teach any difference in specific flow rates or volumes of resin beds between any vessels within the plurality of vessels” (see Response pages 14-15). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
The standard for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness is not “disclosure”. “In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)” (see MPEP 2141, III). This was further clarified recently in the Federal Register, which stated that “the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421-22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 ” (see Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 39/Tuesday, February 27, 2024/page 14450). Further, a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742” (see Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 39/Tuesday, February 27, 2024/page 14450).
In the response, it was argued that the “Jenson reference discloses passing perchlorate contaminated water over resin in some but not all of a plurality of vessels, such that some beds continue to treat water while other beds are at the end of their absorption capacity or removed/replaced …. The Jenson reference does not teach any difference in specific flow rates or volumes of resin beds between any vessels within the plurality of vessels” (see Response page 15). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
First, it is noted that any of the vessels or grouping of vessels is understood to be the first vessel or first bank of vessels and the other vessel or grouping of vessels is understood to be the second vessel or second bank of vessels. Second, US 780 is understood as acknowledging a variation in the flow rate through the various vessels, which is understood to be differing flow rates. As established above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the specific flow rate. Also, US 780 is understood as acknowledging a variation in volume of resins.
In the response, it was argued that “[T]he PTO incorrectly alleges that "the system of US 780, which is operating in a staggered configuration during operation, each vessel in the multibed configuration will have differing volumes of resin bed that can function to remove perchlorate from water." See the Office Action at p. 11. This is an inaccurate reading of the Jenson reference. The staggered configuration during operation taught in the Jensen reference relates to the number of service beds through which an operate pumps water” (see rejection of claim 16).
Independent claim 1 is amended to recite:
starting the water purification process by passing a water source containing PFAS or other contaminants simultaneously and in parallel through the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels);
wherein for a pre-determined period of time that runs until the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) have been replaced at least once, …
for the pre-determined period of time, the volumes of the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5%.
Claim 1 is understood as the volumes of the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels) differ by at least 5% is the volume of the resin beds at the start of the water purification process. Thus, the reasoning presented in paragraph 18/pages 10-11 is rendered moot since is based on the interpretation that pre-determined time is in reference to any point during operation of the system.
In the response, it was argued that “[C]learly, the Jenson reference varies the flow of water through groups of resin beds but fails to disclose any variation of specific flow rate or resin bed volume between individual vessels or groups of vessels, as claimed” (see Response page 16). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. It is unclear if Applicant is arguing that the flow of water through a resin bed, which is contained within a vessel, is distinguishable from the flow of water through a vessel.
Regarding the claimed specific flow rate and volumes of the resin limitations, it is noted that the independent claim 1 and dependent claims, such as claims 8 and 9, do not recite a method step and/or a controlling element that would change or modify the specific flow rate and/or volumes of resin from the claimed period of time to another undefined period of time.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights