Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 18/184,084 filed on 15 March 2023. The application is a 111(a) with priority to provisional application 63/333,251 filed 21 April 2022.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are indefinite because a limitation of these claims is defined by reference to another object, and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not defined in enough detail to allow the reader to ascertain the scope of the claim (MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)). Particularly, the feature that makes claim 1 indefinite is “wherein a system pressure of the water treatment system is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a process without a TAC filter”. Claim 10 is similarly made indefinite by the recitation “wherein a system pressure of the method is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter”. The claims do not recite a process without a TAC filter, and the specification does not provide sufficient guidance to allow one to determine what range of system pressures a process/method without a TAC filter could operate at. Therefore it is not clear what range of system pressures would fall within the claimed range “30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter”. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are similarly indefinite because they each depend from claim 1 or claim 10.
One way this rejection could be overcome is if, instead of defining the system pressure as being 30-60% less than an undefined number (i.e. the system pressure of an undefined system), Applicant amended the claim to instead explicitly define the range of system pressures that the claimed apparatus/method operates at.
For the purpose of further treatment against the art in this action, Examiner interprets that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “process/method without a TAC filter” is any process/method of any kind, and therefore the claimed pressure of “30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter” is any pressure. It follows that any apparatus or method inherently possesses the claimed feature.
Additionally, Claim 18 is indefinite because it recites the limitation "the acid feed stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matsui” (US 2023/0241555 A1 to Matsui et al) in view of “Chau” (US 2021/0323842 A1 to Chau).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a water treatment system for reducing water hardness (figure 9, system 200), comprising: an electrodialysis device (figure 9, electrodialysis device 230; para [0196]) comprising a brine inlet stream (figure 9, concentrate inlet stream 22; para [0196], [0205]), a feed stream (figure 9, diluate inlet stream 23; para [0196]), a brine outlet stream (figure 9, “electrodialysis concentrated water”; para [0196]), and a product outlet stream (figure 9, “electrodialysis diluted water”; para [0196]), a crystallization device (figure 9, crystallization device 210; para [0196]) comprising a brine inlet stream (figure 9, inlet stream to crystallization device 210; para [0196]) and a brine outlet stream (figure 9, outlet stream of crystallization device 210; para [0196]), wherein the brine inlet stream of the crystallization device comprises the brine outlet stream of the electrodialysis device (figure 9, the brine outlet of the electrodialysis device 230 is treated at electrolyzer 220 to make it more alkaline, and then the alkalinized ED brine outlet stream 27 is recycled to the inlet of the crystallization device 210; para [0196]-[0205]) and the brine inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises the brine outlet stream of the crystallization device (figure 9-10, every inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises the outlet stream of the crystallization device), wherein a system pressure of the water treatment system is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a process without a TAC filter (inherently, because there is no limit to what pressure a method without a TAC filter may operate at). Matsui teaches that “[t]he crystallization device 110 crystallizes and removes calcium carbonate from the wastewater containing at least chloride ions, alkali metal ions, carbonate ions, and calcium ions flowing in from the wastewater inflow pipe 10. As the crystallization device 110, a known device capable of depositing and removing calcium carbonate can be used” (para [0155]).
However, Matsui does not disclose any particular device structure for the crystallization device. Matsui does not teach that the crystallization device is a TAC filter.
Chau discloses a water treatment system (figures 3a-3b) comprising a reverse osmosis membrane filter (figures 3a-3b, RO filter unit 20), and a crystallization filter configured to crystallize and thereby remove hardness minerals from a water stream (figure 3, filter unit 30), wherein an outlet stream of the crystallization device is an inlet stream to the reverse osmosis device (figures 3-6, filtered water flows out of filter 30 into inlet 21 of the RO unit water; para [0019]-[0020], [0029]), wherein a system pressure of the water treatment system is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a process without a TAC filter (inherently, because there is no limit to what pressure a method without a TAC filter may operate at).
Chau further teaches that the crystallization filter is a template assisted crystallization (TAC) filter (para [0062]-[0065]). Chau teaches that a TAC filter is a particularly suitable variety of crystallization filter because it is effective to nucleate precipitates of hardness minerals, requires no consumable chemicals to operate, and has a long service lifetime (para [0063]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as the unspecified crystallization device in the invention of Matsui, a template-assisted crystallization (TAC) filter, based on Chau’s teaching that a TAC filter is a particularly suitable variety of crystallization filter because it is effective to nucleate precipitates of hardness minerals, requires no consumable chemicals to operate, and has a long service lifetime (para [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsui teaches a method for reducing water hardness (para [0001], “wastewater treatment method”), the method comprising: routing a brine inlet stream and a feed stream to an electrodialysis device (figure 9, brine inlet stream 22 and feed stream 23 are routed into electrodialysis device 230; para [0196]); and routing a brine outlet stream of the electrodialysis device to a crystallization device (figure 9, the brine outlet of the electrodialysis device 230 is treated at electrolyzer 220 to make it more alkaline, and then the alkalinized ED brine outlet stream 27 is recycled to the inlet of the crystallization device 210; para [0196]-[0205]), wherein the brine inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises a brine outlet stream of the crystallization device (figure 9-10, every inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises the outlet stream of the crystallization device), and a system pressure of the method is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter. Matsui teaches that “[t]he crystallization device 110 crystallizes and removes calcium carbonate from the wastewater containing at least chloride ions, alkali metal ions, carbonate ions, and calcium ions flowing in from the wastewater inflow pipe 10. As the crystallization device 110, a known device capable of depositing and removing calcium carbonate can be used” (para [0155]), and a system pressure of the method is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter (inherently, because there is no limit to what pressure a method without a TAC filter may operate at).
However, Matsui does not disclose any particular device structure for the crystallization device. Matsui does not teach that the crystallization device is a TAC filter.
Chau discloses a water treatment system (figures 3a-3b) comprising a reverse osmosis membrane filter (figures 3a-3b, RO filter unit 20), and a crystallization filter configured to crystallize and thereby remove hardness minerals from a water stream (figure 3, filter unit 30), wherein an outlet stream of the crystallization device is an inlet stream to the reverse osmosis device (figures 3-6, filtered water flows out of filter 30 into inlet 21 of the RO unit water; para [0019]-[0020], [0029]) and a system pressure at which Chau’s system operates is 30-60% less than a system pressure of a method without a TAC filter (inherently, because there is no limit to what pressure a method without a TAC filter may operate at).
Chau further teaches that the crystallization filter is a template assisted crystallization (TAC) filter (para [0062]-[0065]). Chau teaches that a TAC filter is a particularly suitable variety of crystallization filter because it is effective to nucleate precipitates of hardness minerals, requires no consumable chemicals to operate, and has a long service lifetime (para [0063]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as the unspecified crystallization device in the invention of Matsui, a template-assisted crystallization (TAC) filter, based on Chau’s teaching that a TAC filter is a particularly suitable variety of crystallization filter because it is effective to nucleate precipitates of hardness minerals, requires no consumable chemicals to operate, and has a long service lifetime (para [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, and Matsui further teaches an acid supply and an acid feed stream (para [0081]-[0095], the electrolysis device electrolyzes a brine stream to generate an aqueous acid supply and an aqueous base supply; figure 9, para [0196] the aqueous acid supply is directed to acid feed streams 29 and 30), wherein the brine inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises the brine outlet stream of the crystallization filter and the acid feed stream (figure 9, brine inlet stream of the electrodialysis device comprises the brine outlet stream of the crystallization filter with the addition of acid feed stream 30; para [0207]-[0208]).
Regarding claims 3-6, Matsui and Chau render obvious the apparatus of claim 1. The limitations recited in claims 3-6 do not add any further patentable weight because they relate only to the composition of a material that the claimed apparatus could work upon, and do not in any way limit the structure of the apparatus itself. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment method of claim 10. Matsui teaches that alkali metal ions in the feed stream may be present at a concentration range of from 0.1 ppm to 500 ppm (para [0066]), a range which overlaps the claimed range of 30-35 ppm Na+. Matsui does not specify that the feed stream being worked upon has a sodium concentration in the overlapping range of 30-35 ppm Na+, or a potassium concentration in the overlapping range of 0-3 ppm K+. However, given the teaching of Matsui regarding the alkali metal ions being present in a aoncentration range of from 0.1 ppm to 500 ppm (para [0066]) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Matsui to treat any feed stream in need of treatment within the range of ion concentrations that Matsui teaches their method is applicable to, including a feed stream comprising 30-35 ppm Na+ and/or 0.3 ppm K+ as claimed. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment method of claim 10, and Matsui further teaches the feed stream comprises water having a Ca2+ concentration in the claimed range of 40-70 ppm Ca2+ (para [0242], “crystallization treated water” corresponds to the feed stream of the electrodialysis device; pg 15 Table 1, the “Crystallization treated water” comprises 58 ppm Ca2+).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 16, and 17, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, and Matsui further teaches a dissolved ion concentration of the product outlet stream is at least 25% less, and at least 40% less, than the dissolved ion concentration of the feed stream (para [0242], the feed stream is “crystallization treated water”; para [0248], the “electrodialysis diluted water” (i.e. product stream) is mixed with a portion of “crystallization treated water” and a portion of “acidic aqueous solution” to form a stream of water supplied to the reverse osmosis membrane; pg 15 Table 1, the “Crystallization treated water”, has a total dissolved solids (TDS) of 2000 ppm, the “acidic aqueous solution” has a TDS of 7380 ppm, and the “Water to be supplied to reverse osmosis membrane” has TDS of 950 ppm. The dissolved ion concentration of the product stream is therefore, at most, 52.5% less than the TDS of the feed stream).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Chau as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of “Adachi” (US 5,415,751 A to Adachi et al).
Regarding claim 13, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment method of claim 10, however, Matsui discloses their feed stream comprises water having 66 ppm Mg2+. Matsui and Chau do not disclose a feed stream comprising water having 0-5 ppm Mg2+.
Adachi, similarly directed to electrodialysis, teaches that polyvalent cations e.g. Mg2+ can form scale deposits within an electrodialysis device that impede electrodialysis (col 2 ln 56 – col 3 ln 11). Adachi teaches that this problem can be mitigated, and electrodialysis thereby improved, by treating the feed stream to reduce its magnesium concentration to 0-5 ppm Mg2+ before submitting the feed stream to electrodialysis (col 3 ln 1-54, pretreatment reduces the polyvalent ion concentration to “a concentration of not more than several ppm and, preferably, at a concentration of smaller than 1 ppm”; col 8 ln 8-16, in Example 1 Adachi’s feed water is pre-treated to form an electrodialysis feed stream with a Mg2+ concentration of 0.6 ppm; col 9 ln 55-60, in Example 4 the feed water is pre-treated to form an electrodialysis feed stream with a Mg2+ concentration of 1.7 ppm).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsui by using, as the feed stream to the electrodialysis device, a feed stream with a Mg2+ concentration in the range of 0 – 5 ppm, based on Adachi’s teaching that the Mg2+ concentration of the electrodialysis feed should be kept in a similarly low range for the purpose of preventing the formation of scale deposits in the electrodialysis device. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Chau as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of “Mason” (US 3,003,940 A to Mason et al).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Matsui and Chau render obvious the water treatment system of claim 2 and the method of claim 10. Matsui further teaches the acid feed stream comprises hydrochloric acid (para [0084]-[0086]), and is added to the electrodialysis device’s brine inlet stream for purposes of pH control and preventing scale fouling of the electrodialysis membranes (para [0091]-[0095], [0207]-[0208]). However, Matsui does not disclose the concentration of the hydrochloric acid in the acid feed stream.
Mason is similarly directed to adding an acid feed stream to the brine inlet stream of an electrodialysis device for the purpose of controlling pH of the influent stream and suppressing hard water scale deposition at the electrodialysis membranes (col 1 ln 11-26; col 4 ln 11-52). In one embodiment (Example 1, 35-75) Mason teaches that a suitable acid feed stream is one that comprises “concentrated sulfuric acid”; note that “concentrated sulfuric acid” colloquially means 98% sulfuric acid. In another embodiment (Example 2, col 7 ln 1-47), Mason teaches that a suitable acid feed stream is 35% hydrochloric acid, i.e. a composition that comprises 31% hydrochloric acid (per MPEP 2111.03(I), “The transitional term ‘comprising’ ... is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, for the hydrochloric acid feed concentration in the invention of Matsui, a concentration comprising 31% hydrochloric acid, based on Mason’s teaching that an acid feed of this composition is suitable for Matsui’s intended purpose of controlling the brine inlet pH and suppressing hard water scale formation in the electrodialysis device (Mason at col 7 ln 1-47). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0024354 A1 to Xia et al discloses a water treatment system and method, in which the brine outlet stream of an electrodialysis device is treated in a crystallization device to precipitate hardness minerals, then is recycled to the electrodialysis device.
US 2011/0210069 A1 to Xiong et al discloses a water treatment system and method, in which the brine outlet stream of an electrodialysis device is treated in a crystallization device to precipitate hardness minerals, then is recycled to the electrodialysis device.
US 2013/0199931 A1 to Rath et al discloses a water treatment system and method, in which the brine outlet stream of an electrodialysis device is passed through the cathode chamber of an electrolysis device to raise its pH and precipitate hardness minerals, then is passed through the anode chamber of the electrolysis device to lower its pH, then is recycled to the electrodialysis device.
US 2014/0299529 A1 to Govind et al discloses a water treatment system and method, in which the brine outlet stream of an electrodialysis device is treated in a crystallization device to precipitate hardness minerals, then is recycled to the electrodialysis device.
US 6,660,167 B1 to Walder et al discloses the invention of the TAC filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights