DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 24 June 2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14 and 16-18 are currently pending. Claims 2, 8 and 15 have been cancelled.
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 4, 12 and 14 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.
As to claims 4 and 14, the claims recite the limitation "the large grain size layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 12, the claim recites the limitation of “large grain size layer”. However, claim 11, upon which claim 12 is dependent already recites the limitation of a large grain size layer. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claim 12 intends to refer back to the limitation of claim 11 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-177327 A to Kato (Kato).
As to claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 14, Kato teaches an electrodeionization device for removing boron from water to be treated comprising boron, the device comprising an anode (11), a cathode (12) and a plurality of deionization chambers (16) each partitioned by a pair of ion exchange membranes (13/14) between the anode (11) and the cathode (12), the deionization chambers (16) filled with a mixed anion and cation exchange resin; wherein the resin in the deionization chambers (16) is filed in layers along a water flow direction, an upper layer and a lower layer comprising a large grain size of anion and cation exchange resin with an average grain size larger than 0.4 mm and a middle layer formed with small size grain of anion and cation exchange resins at 0.1 to 0.4 mm (Paragraphs 0012-0014 and 0021-0022; Figures 1 and 2). Kato further teaches that instead of providing the layers fully separated, the small size layer can be mixed with large size particles at a ratio of, preferably 9:1 to 7:3 large to small (10-30% small), thus rendering obvious forming any one of these stacked layers, thus for example, the middle layer and the upper and not the lower layer, the upstream layer along the flow of the water to be treated, as a mixed layer as a combination of disclosed embodiments.
As to claims 3 and 16, Kato teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 2. As discussed above, Kato renders obvious the provision of the top two layers as mixed layers, thus the mixed layer provided within 25% of the length of the deionization chamber measured from the upper outlet along the flow of the water to be treated.
As to claim 5, Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Kato renders obvious the provision of the top two layers as mixed layers, thus filed between 20 and 80% of the height along the length of the deionization chamber along the flow of the water to be treated.
As to claims 9, 10, 17 and 18, Kato teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 7. Kato further teaches that a portion of the water passing through the deionization chamber (16) should be sent to the concentration chamber (15), the chambers separated by an ion exchange membrane, thus each chamber capable of being considered a small deionization chamber separated by an intermediate ion exchange membrane, the first small deionization chamber (for example rightmost chamber 16) filed with anion exchange resins and the second small deionization chamber (for example rightmost chamber 15) closer to the cathode and filed with (Paragraphs 0023, 0024 and 0026; Figure 1).
As to claims 11, 12 and 13, Kato teaches an electrodeionization method for removing boron from water to be treated comprising boron, the method comprising passing water to be treated through a plurality of deionization chambers (16) each partitioned by a pair of ion exchange membranes (13/14) and arranged between an anode (11) and a cathode (12), while applying a DC voltage between the anode (11) and the cathode (12), the deionization chambers (16) filled with an ion exchange resin comprising mixed anion and cation resins; wherein the resin in the deionization chambers (16) is filed in layers along a water flow direction, an upper layer and a lower layer comprising a large grain size of anion and cation resin with an average grain size larger than 0.4 mm and a middle layer formed with small size grain of anion and cation resin at 0.1 to 0.4 mm (Paragraphs 0012-0014 and 0021-0022; Figures 1 and 2). Kato further teaches that instead of providing the layers fully separated, the small size layer can be mixed with large size particles at a ratio of, preferably 9:1 to 7:3 large to small (10-30% small), thus rendering obvious forming any one of these stacked layers, thus for example, the middle layer and the upper and not the lower layer, the upstream layer along the flow of the water to be treated, as a mixed layer as a combination of disclosed embodiments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue that Kato fails to render obvious mixing the layers, as only a single recitation of “may also be mixed together” without any additional discussion or details. However, the Examiner maintains that every teaching of a reference is applicable and that this teaching would render obvious mixing any of the three layers and maintains the rejection absent an effective showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0068624 A1 to Hasegawa et al. – Discussing a narrower interpretation of the intermediate ion exchange membrane
US 2008/0067069 A1 to Gifford et al. - Discussing layers and mixtures of resin sizes
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights