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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 under 35 USC 102/103 over Goodrich et al PGPUBS Document US 2021/0047220 (Goodrich) in view of Zhang et al PGPUBS Document US 2018/01672761 (Zhang)have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Leek patent 5,147,532 (Leek) in view of Carr et al patent 6,475,386 (Carr).
It is persuasively argued that the claims now require a liquid storage system configured to store the liquid in a disinfectant-containing state which is not taught by any structural component of respective water treatment systems disclosed by Goodrich or Zhang of record.
It is also persuasively argued that neither Goodrich, nor Zhang, discloses the claimed sequence of storage followed by filter followed by inline UV reactor, nor the claimed arrangement wherein the liquid storage system, filter and inline UV reactor form a liquid channel between liquid inlet and outlet.
Leek in view of Carr is now deemed to teach the argued combination of system components and method steps, in claims 1-10 and 11-20, as described in the details of the below 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection, excepting claims 8 and 18 which remain deemed distinguished and non-obvious over the prior art.
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.
Claim 8 and 11-20 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of claims 8 and 18, respectively, “the liquid storage system includes a liquid storage system and…” is ambiguous as to whether the 1st and 2nd recited storage systems refer to the same or different components.
In independent claim 11, “in a disinfect-containing state” is grammatically unclear as to whether this clause concerns a method step or liquid storage system functionality, or if instead the clause contains a mis-spelling of “disinfectant-containing state” as recited in claim 1.
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 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 1-5, 9, 10, 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leek patent 5,147,532 (Leek) in view of Carr et al patent 6,475,386 (Carr).
For independent system claim 1, Leek discloses: a domestic or household liquid treatment system (column 2, lines 29-36 regarding a water purification system small enough to be used in a home, all of the below system components clearly illustrated in fig 1) comprising:
a liquid inlet structured to receive a liquid (any of the inlets to liquid storage system 35 receiving contaminated liquid from contaminated washing machine15, washbasin 13 and/or bathtub 11 through tubing or piping 29, 31 and 33, inherently containing plural types of contaminants in grey water);
a liquid storage system (holding tank 35 itself and/or heater 53, column 4, lines 14-17 and 31-34);
a filter 57, 59 or 61 structured to remove a first contaminant from the liquid (column 4, line 67-column 5, line 20 regarding 1st contaminants in residue, sentiment and particulate form);
an inline ultraviolet (UV) reactor 62 structured to mitigate a second contaminant in the liquid (column 5, lines 21-31 re mitigating of 2nd microorganism and bacteria contaminants); and
a liquid outlet 67 or 74 configured to dispense liquid that has passed through the inline UV reactor (column 5, lines 20-31 and lines 38-42 regarding dispensing to hose 74’ for economic use of the purified water),
wherein the liquid storage system is located upstream of both the filter and the inline UV reactor, such that liquid stored in the liquid storage system is subsequently directed through the filter and the inline UV reactor (clearly illustrated in fig 1),
the liquid storage system, the filter and the inline UV reactor forming a liquid channel 64 between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet, the liquid outlet being downstream from the liquid inlet, the inline UV reactor and the filter being downstream from the liquid storage system (clearly illustrated in fig 1 and discussed throughout column 4, line 31-column 5, line 30 regarding flow and feeding of water through the successive system components).
Claim 1 differs from Leek by the recitation of the liquid storage system being configured to store the liquid in a disinfectant-containing state.
However, Carr teaches that water provided to domestic or household filtering systems to provide drinking water, may be chlorinated, hence disinfected, and safer for domestic end uses by virtue of being relatively free from micro-organisms (Abstract, column 1, lines 13-21 and column 2, lines 15-18 regarding presence of residual chlorine and filtration to remove such chlorine, although also discussing disadvantages of such chlorination of poor taste and odor of the water prior to filtration).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the domestic or household water treatment arts, to have constructed the liquid storage system of Leek to be configured to store liquid, comprising chlorine, hence in a disinfectant-containing state, as taught by Carr, so as to provide water which is inherently pre-sterilized, hence safer for domestic end-uses. Such modification could have been accomplished by selecting chlorine-resistant materials for the liquid storage system.
Leek also discloses for claim 2, wherein the liquid storage system includes a heat exchanger 55 for heating or cooling the liquid, or a storage tank 35 (column 4, lines 38-40 and 61-66 regarding thermostatically controlled heating to raise the water’s temperature to 90 degrees F of water which has been previously stored and subsequently filtered).
Leek also suggests for claim 3, wherein the liquid treatment system can be considered to optionally not include a second liquid storage system downstream from the inline UV reactor or the filter (see column 7, lines 38-45 regarding options of making the system smaller, and rearranging or omitting components).
For claim 4, Leek further suggests wherein the first contaminant includes chlorine (see also column 3, lines 64-68 regarding treatment of grey water from vanity basins, showers and washing machines, hence inherently from sources containing domestic detergents and cleaning materials which chlorine).
Also see teaching of Carr regarding water being provided to domestic or household filtering systems to provide drinking water, being chlorinated, hence teaching that water within the domestic water treatment systems such as those of Leek being contaminated with chlorine..
Leek discloses for claim 5, wherein the filter is or includes a carbon filter 59 (see column 5, lines 5-8).
For claim 9, Leek is silent regarding cross-sectional area(s) of the liquid channel of the system, hence lacks a clear teaching of wherein a maximum cross-sectional area of the liquid channel between filter and liquid outlet is less than 15 cm2.
However, Leek does suggest such relatively small cross-sectional area dimensions of the liquid channel at column 2, lines 40-44 regarding the system being very compact and easy to install, requiring a total of only about a tenth of a cubic meter, hence piping therein being on the order of square centimeters.
The parameter of cross-sectional area of the channel is deemed to be a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have optimized in order to achieve an optimum balance regarding factors of providing adequate flow for dispensing of purified liquid on demand, minimizing system pressure drops, while achieving optimal compactness to allow the system being located or installed in limited or confined spaces.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) at Sections 2144.04, Section IV, discusses legal precedent regarding insufficiency of patentably distinguishing based on changes in size, proportion or ratio of parameters and dimensions, relative to the prior art, absent findings of such changes resulting in unexpected improvement or different performance of a device.).
For claim 10, Leek discloses wherein the liquid received at the liquid inlet includes the first contaminant, and wherein the liquid treatment system comprises a pre-filter 51 structured to remove a third contaminant from the liquid (column 4, lines 49-53 regarding removal of particulates from the water).
For independent method claim 11, Leek discloses: a method for treating water, i.e. , a liquid with a domestic or household liquid treatment system (column 2, lines 29-36 regarding a water purification system small enough to be used in a home, all of the below system components clearly illustrated in fig 1)
operating a liquid treatment system including:
a liquid inlet structured to receive a liquid (any of the inlets to liquid storage system 35 receiving contaminated liquid from contaminated washing machine15, washbasin 13 and/or bathtub 11 through tubing or piping 29, 31 and 33, inherently containing plural types of contaminants in grey water);
a liquid storage system (holding tank 35 itself and/or heater 53, column 4, lines 14-17 and 31-34);
a filter 57, 59 or 61 structured to remove a first contaminant from the liquid (figure 1 and see column 5, lines 5-14);
an inline ultraviolet (UV) reactor 62 structured to mitigate a second contaminant in the liquid (column 5, lines 21-31 re mitigating of 2nd microorganism and bacteria contaminants with the UV reactor); and
a liquid outlet 67 or 74 configured to dispense liquid that has passed through the inline UV reactor (column 5, lines 20-31 and lines 38-42 regarding dispensing to hose 74’ for economic use of the purified water),
storing with the liquid storage system located upstream of both the filter and the inline UV reactor, a liquid stored in the liquid storage system is subsequently directed through the filter and the inline UV reactor (clearly illustrated in fig 1),
filtering, with the filter, a 1st contaminant from the stored liquid (see column 4, line 67-column 5, line 20 regarding filtering 1st contaminants in residue, sentiment and particulate form with filters 57, 59 and 61), and
mitigating with the inline UV reactor, a 2nd contaminant in the filtered liquid (column 5, lines 21-31 re mitigating of 2nd microorganism and bacteria contaminants with the UV reactor).
Claim 11 differs from Leek by the recitation of the liquid storage system being configured to store the liquid in a “disinfect”, i.e. a disinfectant-containing state.
However, Carr teaches that water provided to domestic or household filtering systems to provide drinking water, may be chlorinated, hence disinfected, and safer for domestic end uses by virtue of being relatively free from micro-organisms (Abstract, column 1, lines 13-21 and column 2, lines 15-18 regarding presence of residual chlorine and filtration to remove such chlorine, although also discussing disadvantages of such chlorination of poor taste and odor of the water prior to filtration).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the domestic or household water treatment arts, to have constructed the liquid storage system of Leek to be configured to store liquid, comprising chlorine, hence in a disinfectant-containing state, as taught by Carr, so as to provide water which is inherently pre-sterilized, hence safer for domestic end-uses. Such modification could have been accomplished by selecting chlorine-resistant materials for the liquid storage system.
Leek also discloses for claim 12, wherein the liquid storage system includes a heat exchanger 55 for heating or cooling the liquid, thus teaches heating or cooling the liquid as it is stored in heat exchanger 55 (column 4, lines 38-40 and 61-66 regarding thermostatically controlled heating to raise the water’s temperature to 90 degrees F of water which has been previously stored and subsequently filtered).
Leek also suggests for claim 13, wherein the liquid treatment system can be considered to optionally not include a second liquid storage system downstream from the inline UV reactor or the filter (see column 7, lines 38-45 regarding options of making the system smaller, and rearranging or omitting components).
For claim 14, Leek further suggests wherein the first contaminant includes chlorine (see also column 3, lines 64-68 regarding treatment of grey water from vanity basins, showers and washing machines, hence inherently from sources containing domestic detergents and cleaning materials which chlorine).
Also see teaching of Carr regarding water being provided to domestic or household filtering systems to provide drinking water, being chlorinated, hence teaching that water within the domestic water treatment systems such as those of Leek being contaminated with chlorine..
Leek also discloses for claim 15, wherein the filter is or includes a carbon filter 59 (see column 5, lines 5-8).
For claim 19, Leek is silent regarding any cross-section of a liquid channel of the system, hence lacks a clear teaching of wherein a maximum cross-sectional area of the liquid channel between filter and liquid outlet is less than 15 cm2.
However, Leek does suggest such relatively small cross-sectional area dimensions of the liquid channel at column 2, lines 40-44 regarding the system being very compact and easy to install, requiring a total of only about a tenth of a cubic meter, hence piping therein being on the order of square centimeters.
The parameter of cross-sectional area of the channel is deemed to be a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have optimized in order to achieve an optimum balance regarding factors of providing adequate flow for dispensing of purified liquid on demand, minimizing system pressure drops, while achieving optimal compactness to allow the system being located or installed in limited or confined spaces.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) at Sections 2144.04, Section IV, discusses legal precedent regarding insufficiency of patentably distinguishing based on changes in size, proportion or ratio of parameters and dimensions, relative to the prior art, absent findings of such changes resulting in unexpected improvement or different performance of a device.).
For claim 20, Leek discloses wherein the liquid received at the liquid inlet includes the first contaminant, and wherein the liquid treatment system comprises a pre-filter 51 structured to remove a third contaminant from the liquid (column 4, lines 49-53 regarding removal of particulates from the water).
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leek patent 5,147,532 (Leek) in view of Carr et al patent 6,475,386 (Carr), as applied to claims 1-5, 9-15, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Goodrich et al PGPUBS Document US 2021/0047220 (Goodrich). Reference paragraph numbers of the Specification of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 6 further differs from Leek by requiring a control system configured to operate the inline UV reactor in a standby mode while the liquid treatment system is not dispensing the liquid.
Goodrich teaches a small, mobile water treatment system employing plural steps of filtration and UV reaction and sterilization [0031 and 0032] , and being so structured to so operate in standby mode [0055 regarding connections and control valves forming components of a control system to enable flexibly taking treatment units on and off-line (thus alternately in operation and in stand-by mode] .
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the domestic water treatment art to have augmented the disclosed UV reactor of Leek, with controls or a control system comprising control valves, to enable the reactor to operate in a standby mode while the liquid treatment system is not dispensing the liquid, as taught by Goodrich, in order to enable continued operation of the water treatment system, during periods when the UV reactor is undergoing maintenance or replacement of parts, or alternately to enable maintenance of the UV reactor whenever needed, to assure its long-term operability.
For claim 7, Goodrich further teaches wherein the standby mode includes periodically activating a UV-C light of the inline UV reactor (capability of the unit being placed on “standby mode” suggested by [0055 re connections and valves to enable flexibility regarding which treatment units are connected and in operation], and see [0050 regarding the UV reactor device being a UV-C treatment device]).
It would have been further obvious to have configured the controls for the UV reactor so as to in a standby mode includes periodically activating a UV-C light of the inline UV reactor, as taught by Goodrich, inherently so as to assure the water remaining sterile at all times, assuring dispensing of sterilized water as needed, and since emitting UV-C light is known as an effective type of emitted UV radiation for killing microorganisms and sterilization.
Claim 16 further differs from Leek by requiring the method comprising operating the inline UV reactor in a standby mode while the liquid treatment system is not dispensing the liquid.
Goodrich teaches a small, mobile water treatment system employing plural steps of filtration and UV reaction and sterilization [0031 and 0032] , and being so structured to so operate in standby mode [0055 regarding connections and control valves forming components of a control system to enable flexibly taking treatment units on and off-line (thus alternately in operation and in stand-by mode] .
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the domestic water treatment art to have augmented the disclosed method of Leek, by providing controls or a control system comprising control valves, to enable the reactor to operate in a standby mode while the liquid treatment system is not dispensing the liquid, thus operating the inline UV reactor in a standby mode while the liquid treatment system is not dispensing the liquid, as taught by Goodrich, in order to enable periodic maintenance or replacement of parts of the UV reactor, so as to assure continued sterilization of the water treatment system .
For claim 17, Goodrich further teaches wherein the standby mode includes periodically activating a UV-C light of the inline UV reactor (capability of the unit being placed on “standby mode” suggested by [0055 re connections and valves to enable flexibility regarding which treatment units are connected and in operation], and see [0050 regarding the UV reactor device being a UV-C treatment device]).
It would have been further obvious to have configured the controls for the UV reactor so as to in a standby mode includes periodically activating a UV-C light of the inline UV reactor, as taught by Goodrich, inherently so as to assure the water remaining sterile at all times, assuring dispensing of sterilized water as needed, and since emitting UV-C light is known as an effective type of emitted UV radiation for killing microorganisms and sterilization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would remain distinguished over all of the other prior art now of record, and also over the newly cited prior art, in view of recitation of the liquid treatment system of claim 1, wherein the liquid storage system includes a liquid storage system and a heating stage including a heat exchanger, wherein the liquid storage system and the heating stage form parallel liquid subchannels
The prior art lacks any teaching or suggestion of a storage system and heating stage, as claimed forming parallel liquid subchannels.
Claim 18 would remain distinguished over all of the other prior art now of record, and also over the newly cited prior art, in view of recitation of the method of treating a liquid of claim 11, wherein the liquid storage system includes a liquid storage system and a heating stage including a heat exchanger, wherein the liquid storage system and the heating stage form parallel liquid subchannels
The prior art lacks any teaching or suggestion of a storage system and heating stage, as claimed forming parallel liquid subchannels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
01/30/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773