DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 6/17/26:
claims 1-4 are presently pending
the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new prior art grounds of rejections are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0039688 to Suzuki et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SUZUKI”) in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0210565 to Kamimura et al., (hereinafter referred to as “KAMIMURA”).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a removing system (see generally SUZUKI at Abstract and Figures 2, 3 and 6 teaching a deionization treatment device, i.e. a removing system for ions), comprising:
an anode and a cathode having active materials opposed to each other to form a first passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 2 depicting the interelectrode flow channel 15 as the first passage; see also SUZUKI at ¶56 discussing the electrodes of the deionization section 10; see also SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting deionization section 10 and the piping immediately after), the anode and the cathode configured to adsorb ions in response to the application of direct current potential between the active materials (see SUZUKI at ¶69-¶71 teaching the operation of the electrodes as claimed);
a second passage configured to form a path for a solution containing ions at a concentration equal to or higher than a predetermined level (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting the inlet channel to the joining of the line from tank 21 labeled as the “WATER TO BE TREATED” which acts as the second passage);
a reservoir configured to hold a diluting liquid (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting tank 21; see also SUZUKI at ¶60 teaching tank 21 having low ion concentration water);
a third passage configured to connect the reservoir to the first passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting tank 21 fluidly connected to the first passage as set forth above comprising the piping from tank 21 through V3 to deionization section 10), the third passage merging with the second passage to mix the solution with the diluting liquid (see SUZUKI at ¶60 and ¶62 teaching tank 21 as holding low ion concentration water; see also SUZUKI at ¶103-¶105 teaching the supplying of the low ion concentration water as claimed; see also SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting the joining of the piping from tank 21 and V3 with the piping containing the water labeled as “WATER TO BE TREATED”);
a fourth passage extending from the first passage to the reservoir (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting piping 151 which extends from the piping immediately after deionization section 10 back to the tank 21), the fourth passage allowing the diluting liquid flowing out of the first passage to return to the reservoir (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting piping and controllable valves that would allow for the operation as claimed), the fourth passage, the reservoir, the third passage and the first passage forming a circulation path for the diluting liquid (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting a circulation path as claimed);
a liquid pump disposed in the circulation path, the liquid pump configured to generate circulation of the diluting liquid through the third passage, the first passage, the fourth passage and the reservoir under a predetermined pressure during an adsorption mode (see SUZUKI at ¶59 teaching valve V3 as including an option of valve with pump; see also SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting V3 in the circulation path as set forth); and
a second flow controlling valve disposed in the third passage to adjust a flow rate of the diluting liquid pass through the third passage (see SUZUKI at ¶59 discussing V3 being a valve; see also SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting the valve V3 being located in the third passage as set forth above).
While SUZUKI teaches the use of multiple valves in the treatment device of Fig. 6 (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting V1, V2, V3 and V4), SUZUKI fails to explicitly teach a first flow controlling valve disposed in the second passage, the first flow controlling valve configured to adjust a flow rate of the solution mixed with the diluting liquid to establish, in the first passage, a liquid containing the ions at a concentration lower than the predetermined level. However, KAMIMURA teaches a similar deionization treatment device as SUZUKI (see KAMIMURA at Abstract and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). KAMIMURA further teaches a deionization treatment device having a inlet valve specifically for stoppage-time (see KAMIMURA at Fig. 5 depicting V11 and also ¶96 teaching V11 being a stoppage-time control valve that allows the controller to stop the operation of the device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the benefit of being able to provide the device so that the operation could be stopped as needed, i.e. in case of emergency or shut-down for maintenance or the like. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have included a controllable valve as taught by KAMIMURA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a first flow controlling valve in the second passage, as taught by KAMIMURA, in the system of SUZUKI so as to have a system as claimed to provide the ability to easily shutdown the system as needed.
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKI in view of KAMIMURA teaches the removing system further comprising:
a 1st sensor configured to detect the concentration of the ions in the liquid flowing into the second passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3 depicting a sensor connected to control section 40 to test the water to be treated; see also SUZUKI at ¶35 teaching the measuring of the scale component ions in the water to be treated; while it is noted that Fig. 3 is referred to, Fig. 6 is a 2nd embodiment of that shown in Fig. 3 that further includes a circulation section as discussed in ¶128 as to the relatedness of the two embodiments);
a control circuit configured to control the opening degrees of the 1st and 2nd valves based on the concentrations detected at the 1st sensor (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting control section 140 which as discussed at ¶105 is used to monitor the concentration and control the flow rate of the low ion concentration water and water to be treated so as to maintain the concentration of ions below a certain threshold; see also SUZUKI at ¶139-¶140 teaching the controlling so as to adjust the flowrates of treated water so as to only provide the amount needed based on the measured amount of the scale causing ions).
While SUZUKI teaches the placement of sensors to monitor ion concentration (see SUZUKI at ¶34-¶35), SUZUKI fails to explicitly teach there being a 2nd sensor to detect the concentration of ions in the diluting liquid as claimed and that 2nd sensor also being used by the control circuit to control the 1st and 2nd valves.
However, as taught by SUZUKI (see SUZUKI at ¶105), it was known in the art to monitor the ion concentration and to use the controller to ensure the concentration of the ions stayed below a certain amount. Moreover, although SUZUKI is silent as to the use of a sensor to monitor the concentration of ions in the low ion concentration water, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that in order to obtain a more accurate picture or determination of the total ion concentration once the low ion concentration water is mixed with the water to be treated, that it would be helpful to have the concentration of both the water to be treated and the low ion concentration water. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have further included this additional sensor so as to provide even more detailed information to the control circuit to further enhance control of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an additional ion concentration sensor, as taught by SUZUKI, so as to be placed in the third passage to monitor the concentration of ions in the low ion concentration water so as to allow for enhanced control by the control circuit of the ion concentration in the system of SUZUKI as modified by KAMIMURA.
Regarding claim 3, SUZUKI in view of KAMIMURA teaches the removing system further comprising a first on-off valve disposed in the fourth passage to adjust the flow rate of the diluting liquid passing through the fourth passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting valve V4; see also SUZUKI at ¶133-¶134 teaching the valve V4 being turned on and off so as to be an on-off valve as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, SUZUKI in view of KAMIMURA teaches the removing system further comprising a fifth passage bifurcating from the fourth passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting line 23 going back to the separation of piping 151 as the fifth passage which separates from the fourth passage as claimed), and a second on-off valve disposed in the fifth passage to allow a flow in the fifth passage in response to shutoff of the first on-off valve during a release mode (see SUZUKI at Fig. 6 depicting valve V1; see also SUZUKI at ¶133 teaching V1 being closed when V4 is opened and during the reclamation or release mode).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based on a different embodiment and on the further modification of SUZUKI in view of KAMIMURA.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights