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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2016/0039688 to Suzuki et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SUZUKI”).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a removing system (see generally SUZUKI at Abstract and Figures 2 & 3 teaching a deionization treatment device, i.e. a removing system for ions), comprising:
an anode and a cathode configured to oppose active materials 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), the anode and the cathode adsorbing 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 liquid containing ions at a concentration equal to or higher than a predetermined level (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3 depicting the inlet channel to deionization section 10 labeled as the “WATER TO BE TREATED” which acts as the second passage);
a third passage configured to connect a path for diluting liquid to the second passage to mix the liquid with the diluting liquid, the third passage serving to supply to the first passage liquid containing ions at a concentration lower than the predetermined level (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3 depicting tank 21 fluidly connected to the second passage containing the water to be treated; see also 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).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI.
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKI 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);
a 1st valve disposed in the second passage to adjust a flow rate of the liquid passing through the second passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3 depicting water to be treated line which although not explicitly depicting a valve would be understood to include a valve of some type to turn off and on the supply of the water to be treated; see also SUZUKI at ¶72-¶75 teaching a reclamation step which would of necessity include turning off the supply of the water to be treated so as to discharge ions removed from the water treated previously);
a 2nd valve disposed in the third passage to adjust a flow rate of the diluting liquid passing through the third passage (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3 depicting valve V3);
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. 3 depicting control section 40 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).
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.
Conclusion
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