DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11 and 23 are objected to because of the following:
“100lbs” should be “100 lbs” (in each of claims 1 and 23 near the middle of the claims);
“220bs” should be “220 lbs” (claim 10); and
“40lbs and 80lbs” should be “40 lbs and 80 lbs” (claim 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
The following terms lack antecedent basis: “the flow of materials”, “the normal flow configuration”, “the backwash configuration”, “the air injection configuration”, “the rinse configuration” (see lines 5-9 in each of claims 1 and 23); and “the fleck 2510-SXT-AIO” (claim 5).
Claims 4-7 contain the trade names. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trade names used
Fleck 2510-SXT-AIO;
Light Spring Schrader Valve; and
Clack 948 Mineral Tank
render the claims indefinite.
The balance of the listed claims are also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries that are applied 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy (U.S. 2004/0144727 A1), hereinafter “McCoy ‘727” in view of APS Tech Notes, KDF Water Filtration Media publication, hereinafter “APS”.
As for claims 1 and 23, McCoy ‘727 teaches a pressurized water treatment apparatus comprising,
an inlet port 12, wherein the inlet port is configured to be connected to a pressurized fluid source [0014];
a check valve 14, the check valve being connected to the inlet port to prevent the flow of materials into the pressurized fluid source;
a 4-cycle control valve 16, the 4-cycle control valve being connected to the inlet port, the 4-cycle control valve regulating the flow of fluid through the normal flow configuration (figure 1), the backwash configuration (figure 2), the air injection configuration (figure 3) and the rinse configuration (figure 4);
an air injector assembly 34, the air injector assembly being an integrated portion of the 4-cycle control valve (see figures 3 and 3A);
a one-way pressure sensitive valve 44, the one-way pressure sensitive valve being connected to the air injector assembly (figure 3A);
a treatment tank body 18, the treatment tank body comprising an upper portion (above the treatment media) and a middle portion (occupied by media 28) and a lower portion (occupied by media 30), the upper portion of the treatment tank body being connected to the 4-cycle control valve 16;
a compressed air pocket 26, the compressed air pocket being located within the upper portion of the treatment tank body;
a media 28 in the middle portion of the treatment tank body 18;
a gravel media coarser than the media 28 and positioned in the lower portion of the treatment tank body;
a riser tube 22, the riser tube being located within the treatment tank body, the riser tube being connected to the 4-cycle control valve, the riser tube extending from the 4- cycle control valve through the upper portion of the treatment tank body and through the copper-zinc media in the middle portion of the treatment tank body and the garnet gravel media in the lower portion of the treatment tank body (as shown in figure 1);
a combined strainer-distributor basket 24, the combined strainer-distributor basket being connected to the riser tube in the lower portion of the treatment tank body, the combined strainer-distributor basket being surrounded by the gravel media 30, the combined strainer-distributor basket defining an inner volume and that inner volume being in fluid connection with the riser tube (as shown); and
an outlet port 20, the outlet port being connected to the 4-cycle control valve, the outlet port connecting the 4-cycle control valve to a potable water plumbing system [0016].
McCoy ‘727 doesn’t specify the middle portion of his treatment tank body to include a copper-zinc media, but such is taught by APS. APS teaches a copper-zinc media comprising a high-purity medium copper-zinc media (granular KDF 55 or KDF 85), the copper-zinc media having a density of at least 100 lbs. per cubic foot (KDF process media having a density of 171 lbs./ft3) [as in claims 1 and 23]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the high-purity copper-zinc granular media of the APS reference in the middle portion of the tank body of McCoy ‘727, since APS teaches the benefits of reducing contaminants in water using oxidation/reduction reactions; effective chlorine removal; protecting existing water filtration/purification technologies in POE treatment of groundwater supplies; and controlling microorganisms in the same environment of use as McCoy ‘727 (e.g. groundwater from a well pump).
McCoy ‘727 doesn’t specify his gravel 30 in the lower portion of the treatment tank to include garnet granular media, but such is taught by APS. APS teaches a garnet gravel media [as in claims 1 and 23]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the gravel media 30 of McCoy ‘727 to include the garnet gravel of APS, since APS teaches such to be recommended as underbedding about the distributor.
McCoy ‘727 doesn’t specify the combined strainer-distributor basket to have a total flow area between two and ten square inches or between two and six times the riser tube flow area. However, ABS teaches choosing a distributor depending upon the backwash flow rate. Since the total flow area through the combined strainer-distributor basket depends upon the size thereof, choosing the size of the claimed valves for the total flow area would have been obvious depending upon the optimal backwash flow rate needed depending upon the service flow rate in the environment of use (APS teaches that a backwash flow rate should be twice the service flow rate). It also would have been obvious since APS teaches removing any backwash flow restrictions and not restricting the pipe size to the drain. For the reasons, the total flow area of the combined strainer-distributor basket (as in claims 1 and 23) is a result-effective variable that would have been obvious.
As for claim 2, the pressurized fluid source comprises private or public water supply (e.g. APS teaches residential or commercial.
As for claim 3, McCoy teaches the outlet port 20 may be connected to a potable water plumbing system [0002].
As for claims 4 and 5, McCoy teaches using a Fleck Company Model 2510 for the 4-cycle control valve, such that using a Fleck 2510-SXT-AIO control valve would have been obvious as simple substitution for the same purpose.
As for claim 6, McCoy teaches his one-way pressure sensitive valve to be a Schrader valve such that using a Light Spring Schrader Valve would have been obvious as simple substitution for the same purpose.
As for claim 7, McCoy teaches a treatment tank 10 inches in diameter and 48 inches in height such that using a tank that is a Clack 948 (9 x 48) mineral tank would have been obvious since the Clack brand is well known and would be readily available.
As for claim 8, McCoy uses ambient air for the compressed air pocket [0042].
As for claims 9-10, the KDF 55 or 85 comprises high-purity medium copper-zine granules or 171 lbs. per cubic foot.
As for claim 11, the amount of KDF media used (e.g. 40 to 80 lbs.) depends upon the surface area of media necessary to accommodate the expected volumetric flow rate of water to be treated as the environment of use.
As for claim 12, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, the garnet gravel media comprises garnet.
As for claim 13, the size of garnet gravel media to comprise garnet #6 would have been obvious depending upon the hydraulic design and the filtration media size used above it in order to still support the filter media above while allowing for proper water flow and effective backwashing without media loss. It is also pointed out that the size of garnet #6 (.132) is within the range of 1/8 to ¼ inches taught by McCoy [0024].
As for claim 14, the amount of garnet gravel media used (e.g. between 25 lbs. and 75 lbs.) would have been obvious depending upon the amount of KDF (and other media) above and the necessary backwash flow rate (which depends upon e.g. the service flow rate, the backwash water temperature and other factors taught by APS).
As for claims 15 and 16, the diameter of the riser tube and the width of the distributor basket would have been obvious depending upon the factors already listed above in the rejection of claim 1. See the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 above.
As for claim 17, the distributor basket a backwash flow rate of at least 7 GPM. would have been obvious depending upon the service flow rate, backwash water flow temperature, and other factors listed in APS.
As for claim 18, the combined strainer- distributor basket having a plurality of apertures, each individual aperture having a diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the plurality of gravel particles would have been obvious to prevent loss of media.
As for claim 19, the total flow area of the combined strainer-distributor basket being between 3.30 and 4.30 square inches would have been obvious depending upon the factors already listed above in the rejection of claim 1. See the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 above.
As for claim 20, the total flow area of the combined strainer-distributor basket being at least three times greater than the flow area of the riser tube would have been obvious depending upon the factors already listed above in the rejection of claim 1. See the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 above.
As for claim 21, the total flow area of the combined strainer-distributor basket being at least five times greater than the flow area of the riser tube would have been obvious depending upon the factors already listed above in the rejection of claim 1. See the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 above.
As for claim 22, the plurality of apertures of the distributor portion of the combined strainer-distributor basket defining diameter apertures between 0.1 inch and 375 inches would have been obvious depending upon the size of the media thereabove and around the combined strainer-distributor basket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779