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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-18 and 28, and Specie A-3, multi-bank filtration system, in the reply filed on December 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30, 2025.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30, 2025. In the next reply to the Office, Applicant must provide the Office with an updated claim set with the correct status identifier for each claim (see MPEP 1893.01(a)(1)). A Notice of Non-Compliant will be issued if an updated claim set with the correct status identifiers are not provided.
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 and 28 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 “at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels)”, “a first vessel (or first bank of vessels)” and “a second vessel (or second bank of vessels)”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. First, it is unclear if the claimed limitation is directed to a) “two vessels”, “first vessel”, “second vessel” or b) “two banks of vessels”, “first bank of vessels”, “second bank of vessels” or c) some combination thereof. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as being open to any of these interpretations. Second, it is unclear what a “banks of vessels” means. The as-originally filed specification does not define the term “banks of vessels” and it is an unknown term in the art. Claims 8-12 are also rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 1 recites “at least 5%, preferably by at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because the claim recites a range within a range limitation. The scope of the claim is unclear. Claims 3, 5, 11, and 17 are also rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 1 recites “for a 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%, preferably at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. First, it is unclear if the “volume of the resin beds” is a quantity that is during operations of the system for water purification or at a time prior to operation or some other time period. Second, it is unclear if “volume of beds” is the volume of bed that can functionally operate to remove impurities from water or the quantity of resin placed within the vessel prior to operation of the water purification process. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as being open to any of these interpretations.
Claim 1 recites “for a pre-determined period of time, the specific flow rates” and “for a pre-determined period of time, the volumes of the resin beds”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the “pre-determined period of time” for flow rate and volume of resin beds is the same or separate and distinct from one another. Claims 2, 8, 9 and 28 are also rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 1 recites “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)”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how the “combined weighted average of leakage” is determined by the claimed method. It is unclear which or how many vessels are used to determine the “combined weighted average of leakage”. It is unclear if the combined weighted average uses each vessel of a bank of vessels or uses an average from the combination of vessels with said bank of vessels. The as-originally filed specification does not provide a definition of calculation for determining/calculating the “combined weighted average of leakage”. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as “the amount of leakage of other contaminants is from the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels)”.
Claims 2-18 and 28 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 2 recites “the pre-determined period of time runs until at least the resin bed in the first vessel (or first bank of vessels) has been replaced with fresh resin”. Claim 2 is deemed indefinite because the “pre-determined period of time” is dependent upon an unknown element, i.e. resin bed “has been replaced with fresh resin”. Secondly, it is unclear if “the pre-determined period of time” is the same as the period of time associated with specific flow rate, associated with volumes of resin beds, or is a separate and distinct period of time.
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 8 recites “after the pre-determined period of time when 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 of the water source through the resin beds is substantially the same.”. Claim 8 is deemed indefinite. First, claim 8 recites two different time/actions, i.e. “after the pre-determined period of time” and “when the resin beds…have been replaced”. It is unclear which time period controls. Second, the “the specific flow rate … through the resin beds” is dependent upon an unknown element, i.e. “after the pre-determined period of time” and “when the resin beds…have been replaced”. Third, it is unclear which resin beds are being substantially the same. For example, it may be the first vessel and the second vessel, it may be the first banks of vessels or the second banks of vessels, or it may be some other unknown combination. Fourth, claim 8, which is dependent upon claim 1, requires the specific flow rate “through the resin beds is substantially the same”. However, claim 1 requires differing flow rates. It is unclear how the flow rates can be differing and substantially the same. Fifth, it is unclear if “the pre-determined period of time” is the same as the period of time associated with specific flow rate, associated with volumes of resin beds, or is a separate and distinct period of time. Claim 9 is also rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 15 recites “the resin beds include strong base anion exchange resins, preferably styrene-divinylbenzene gel resins in either the chloride form or the mixed chloride, sulfate and bicarbonate form”. Claim 15 is deemed indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear. First, t is unclear if the resin beds include “strong base anion exchange resins” or “styrene-divinylbenzene gel resins”. Second, it is unclear which “resin bed” are being further defined. For example, it may be the first vessel and the second vessel, it may be the first banks of vessels or the second banks of vessels, or it may be some other unknown combination. Third, it is unclear if the form choices are “chloride form or the mixed chloride” and “sulfate and bicarbonate form”. For the sake of compact prosecution, a portion of claim 15 is understood as “strong base anion exchange resin, wherein the form of the strong base anion exchange resin is selected from the group consisting of [[the]] chloride form, [[or the]] mixed chloride form, sulfate form or [[and]] bicarbonate form.
Claim 17 recites “the size or volume of the vessels differ by no more than 10%, preferably by no more than 5%”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 17 is understood to be dependent upon claim 16.
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”. Claim 28 is deemed indefinite because the claimed feature “the pre-determined period of time” is defined in terms of an unknown element, i.e. all of the resin beds have been replaced with fresh resin at least once. It is also unclear if the “pre-determined period of time” is a period of time that is immediately after “replaced with fresh resin at least once” or can be any timer period after “replaced with fresh resin at least once”, such as 12 months after the replacement. Secondly, it is unclear if “the pre-determined period of time” is the same as the period of time associated with specific flow rate, associated with volumes of resin beds, or is a separate and distinct period of time.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060144780 A1 (hereinafter US 780), or in the alternative US 780 in view of US 3933631 A (hereinafter US 631).
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 period of time” may be any period of time at any length of time. 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 at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) for water purification, including a first vessel (or first bank of vessels) and a second vessel (or 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, 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, 0053, 0062). Herein, the claimed “pre-determined period of time” is understood as any period of time of operating the water purification process.
It is understood that “a pre-determined period of time” may be any period of time at any length of time. “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.
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.
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.
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%, preferably by at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%; and for a pre-determined period of time”, 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 differences 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.
Under the interpretation that the pre-determined time refers to any time period of operating the water purification process, US 780 discloses for a 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%, preferably at least 10%, more preferably at least 15% (see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0043, 0045, 0062 and figures 2-4).
It is understood that “a pre-determined period of time” may be any period of time at any length of time. 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 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 discloses that the “Beds are intentionally sequenced such that each bed is operating at different, equally staggered points along their respective breakthrough curves” (see US 780 paragraph 0045). Hence, 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.
Under the interpretation that the pre-determined time refers to a time period of prior to operating the water purification process, US 780 does not disclose for a 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%, preferably at least 10%, more preferably at least 15% (see US 780 paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0043, 0045, 0062).
It is understood that “a pre-determined period of time” may be any period of time at any length of time. “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.
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.
In the alternative, if US 780 does not disclose a “for a pre-determined period of time, 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%, preferably by at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%; and for a 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%, preferably at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%;”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 631.
US 631 discloses a method and system for “improving the efficiency of exhaustion and regeneration of fixed bed ion exchangers in which the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle” and “reduce the amount of ion exchange material and equipment required in processes wherein the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle” (see US 631 col 4 lines 15-25). US 631 discloses a system where
beds are exhausted and regenerated in sequence one after another by connecting various combinations of vessels to form different service and regeneration groups and thereby move the points where the fluid being treated and the regenerant or regenerants are introduced into the system. In the first step, two or more vessels, which contain partially exhausted beds in differing stages of exhaustion, are connected in parallel to form a first service group and the fluid being treated passes in parallel through the vessels. At the same time, a vessel containing a bed of exhausted ion exchange material that has just been removed from service is connected in series with at least one vessel containing a partially regenerated bed to form a first regeneration group ….
After the primary bed in the regeneration group has been regenerated, it is returned to service by connecting it in series with a first vessel in the first service group, containing the most nearly exhausted bed in that service group, to form a second service group. The vessel containing the freshly regenerated bed is connected downstream of the first vessel and these two vessels are connected in parallel with the remaining vessel or vessels that were in the first service group. The fluid being treated passes through the second service group until the bed of ion exchange material in the first vessel from the first service group is substantially completely exhausted. During this step, the freshly regenerated bed acts as a polisher, absorbing ions that leak through the bed that is nearing exhaustion
(see US 631 col 4 lines 34-68; see also US 631 figures 1-3j). During the water treatment process of US 631, there is a group of vessels, with varying amount of exhausted resin, operating in parallel to treat the water flowing therethrough, that group of operating vessels changes over time, thereby having various amounts of resin that is capable of treating the water and the rate of water flowing through the vessels will necessarily change as valves are opened and closed during the different switching of vessels/treatment/polishing/regenerating steps, thereby varying the gpm/cubic foot (specific flow rate) (see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 9 line 51). US 631 discloses “Optimum operation with this system is achieved by adjusting the rates at which raw water and regenerant pass through the vessel, the amount of resin in the vessel, … according to techniques well known in the ion exchange art, so that breakthrough from the most exhausted bed in the service group occurs shortly after a polisher bed has been connected in series with it (see US 631 col 7 lines 53-62). US 631 discloses calculations for determining the gpm/cubic feet (see US 631 col 3 line 49 – col 4 line 10; col 9 lines 23-51).
US 631 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a multi-vessel ion exchange system and/or system directed towards achieving/determining breakthrough or leakage of a vessel of an ion exchange system.
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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780, which is consistent with the method of US 780, where vessels are periodically removed from service and replaced, because it would assist with improving the efficiency of exhaustion and regeneration of fixed bed ion exchangers in which the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle” and “reduce the amount of ion exchange material and equipment required in processes wherein the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle.
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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780, which is consistent with the method of US 780, where vessels are periodically removed from service and replaced, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/treat raw water.
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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780, which is consistent with the method of US 780, wherein vessels are periodically removed from service and replaced, because it would assist with breakthrough from the most exhausted bed in the service group occurs shortly after a polisher bed has been connected in series with it.
The combination of US 780 in view of US 631 would achieve a water purification system and method wherein the vessels have varying amount of exhausted resin, operating in parallel to treat the water flowing therethrough, that group of operating vessels changes over time, thereby having various amounts of resin that is capable of treating the water and the rate of water flowing through the vessels will necessarily change as valves are opened and closed during the different switching of vessels/treatment/polishing/regenerating steps, thereby varying the gpm/cubic foot (specific flow rate) (see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 8 line 66).
Hence, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, is deemed to disclose a method for controlling the amount of leakage of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or other contaminants from resin beds during a water purification process to no more than a pre-determined amount, comprising the steps of a. providing at least two vessels (or at least two banks of vessels) for water purification, including a first vessel (or first bank of vessels) and a second vessel (or second bank of vessels); each vessel including a resin bed; and b. 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, 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%, preferably by at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%; and for a 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%, preferably at least 10%, more preferably at least 15%.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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) (Due to the indefiniteness rejection, as presented above, this limitation is understood as “the amount of leakage of other contaminants is from the resin beds in the at least two vessels (or the at least two banks of vessels)”.) (see US 780 paragraph 0062; see US 631 col 4 lines 54-68; col 7 lines 33-47).
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 by determining the leakage, as disclosed in US 631, 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 2, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 2 is deemed indefinite because the term “pre-determined period of time” is unknown (see indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 and 2). Herein, claim 2 is understood as the resin bed has been replaced with fresh resin.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the resin bed has been replaced with fresh resin (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 claims 1, 17; paragraphs 0014, 0018, 0057-0061).
Regarding claim 3, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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; see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 8 line 66; see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 8 line 66).
As established above, 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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780. This process would include the steps of opening and closing valves, which would necessarily cause a change in the flow rate. This change in flow rate would yield a moment in time when the flow rate is faster in a second vessel than the first vessel.
Regarding claim 4, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, does not disclose 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”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631,.
US 780 establishes that flow rate is a result effective variable. (see US 780 paragraph 0042). Without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow rate 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.
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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631. 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 5 is deemed indefinite. Claim 5 is understood as “the volume of resin bed in the second vessel is bigger than the volume of resin bed in the first vessel”.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the volume of resin bed in the second vessel is 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; see US 631 col 4 lines 34-68; see also US 631 figures 1-3j).
As established above, 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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780, which is consistent with the method of US 780, where vessels are periodically removed from service and replaced, because it would assist with improving the efficiency of exhaustion and regeneration of fixed bed ion exchangers in which the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle” and “reduce the amount of ion exchange material and equipment required in processes wherein the service cycle is substantially longer than the regeneration cycle; reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/treat raw water; and/or because it would assist with breakthrough from the most exhausted bed in the service group occurs shortly after a polisher bed has been connected in series with it.
Regarding claim 6, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the resin bed includes PFAS ad/ab-sorbing material (see US 780 paragraphs 0031-0032).
While US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, does not disclose the resin material will ad/ab-sorb PFAS, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses a material comprising an ion exchange resin/resin bed. The material of US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the resin bed is an ion exchange resin (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 8 is deemed indefinite. Claim 8 is understood as fresh resin has been replaced in each vessel at least once.
As noted above, it is unclear how the specific flow rates can be differing, as recited in claim 1, and substantially the same, as recited in claim 8.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses fresh resin has been replaced in each vessel at least once (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0014, 0046; see US 631 figures 2a-3j). US 780 discloses that the step of replacing spent resin with fresh resin is repeated throughout the method of treating raw water.
Regarding claim 9, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 9 is deemed indefinite. Claim 9 is understood a volume of fresh resin has been replaced in each vessel at least once.
As noted above, it is unclear how the volumes of resin beds can be differing, as recited in claim 1, and substantially the same, as recited in claim 8.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses a volume of fresh resin has been replaced in each vessel at least once (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0014, 0046; see US 631 figures 2a-3j). US 780 discloses that the step of replacing spent resin with fresh resin is repeated throughout the method of treating raw water.
Regarding claim 10, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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; see US 631 figures 3a-3j).
Regarding claim 11, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 11 is deemed indefinite. Claim 11 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 and the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the third vessel (or third bank of vessels) is faster than the specific flow rate of the water source through the resin bed in the second vessel (or second bank of vessels).
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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; see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 8 line 66; see US 631 figures 1-3j and col 6 line 26 – col 8 line 66).
As established above, 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 by incorporating the process grouping feature, as disclosed in US 631, wherein vessels may be treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, wherein vessels are continuously forming new groups of treating raw water, regenerating, or polishing, as disclosed in US 780. This process would include the steps of opening and closing valves, which would necessarily cause a change in the flow rate. This change in flow rate would yield a moment in time when the flow rate is faster in a second vessel than the first vessel and the third vessel is faster than the second vessel.
It is noted that the length of time for the difference in flow rate may be momentary, i.e. not for the length of the water purification apparatus or a claimed pre-determined period of time.
Regarding claim 12, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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).
US 780 establishes that flow rate is a result effective variable. (see US 780 paragraph 0042). Without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow rate 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.
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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, does not disclose the resin beds are replaced with fresh resin after about 12 to 48 months.
However, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631,
Regarding claim 14, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the contaminants include nitrates (see US 780 figures 2-4paragraphs 0034, 0036).
Regarding claim 15, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the vessels are of similar size or volume (see rejection of claim 1; see US 780 figure1; see US 631 figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the size or volume of the vessels differ by no more than 10%, preferably by no more than 5% (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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, does not disclose the specific flow rates are measured in bed volumes per hour (BV/h).
However, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the gallons per minute (see US 780 paragraphs 0043, 0052, 0053, 0061; see US 631 col 9 lines 22-41; col 10 lines 54 – col 11 lines 15). 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).
Regarding claim 28, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, the pre-determined period of time runs until all of the resin beds have been replaced with fresh resin at least once (see rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9). Herein, the “
As noted above, claim 28 is deemed indefinite. Claim 28 is understood as all of the resin beds have been replaced with fresh resin at least once.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses all of the resin beds have been replaced with fresh resin at least once (see rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9; see US 780 claims 1 and 17 and paragraphs 0014, 0046; see US 631 figures 2a-3j). US 780 discloses that the step of replacing spent resin with fresh resin is repeated throughout the method of treating raw water.
Claims 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, 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, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, of which Purolite A-600 is cited by both NPL and US 780, is capable of sorbing PFAS.
Regarding claim 15, US 780 as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, US 780, or in the alternative, US 780 in view of US 631, discloses the resin beds include strong base anion exchange resins, preferably styrene-divinylbenzene gel resins in either the chloride form or the mixed chloride, sulfate and bicarbonate form (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).
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
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