DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Claims 1-19 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. Claim 1, upon which the remaining claims are dependent, recites “a device…for producing conditioned water by subjecting the water to an deionize the water by subjecting the water to a deionizing component or to ionize the water by subjecting the water to an ionizing component”; however, the vague content of this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether the claimed device needs to do comprise both the deionizing component and the ionizing the component or only one in order to read on the claim. The claim can be interpreted either way with respect to the production of the conditioned water, wherein the valves can be controlled to produce either the deionized or ionized water or the valves can be controlled to produce deionized water OR ionized water and read on the claim. The vagueness of this limitation requires the grounds of rejection. Note this is a different issue from that of Claim 20 (see below), especially since Claim 20 does not recite the production of conditioned water that leads to this issue of indefiniteness. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume only one of the deionizing component or the ionizing component will be enough to read on Claim 1 and its dependents.
Claim 7 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting the limitation “certain system components”, as the claim language is unclear what components may fall under such “certain system components” that would read on the claim. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume any single component may qualify as a certain system component that would read on instant Claim 7.
Claims 12 and 13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim language is unclear whether the system of the instant claims requires a sediment filter to read on the claims. Claim 11, upon which Claims 12 and 13 are dependent, recites a plurality of units that are included to disinfect the water; however, Claim 12 only addresses one of these units: the filter cartridge. The claims are therefore unclear on whether the filter cartridge of Claim 11 is required to read on Claims 12 and 13. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume a filter cartridge is required.
Claim 16 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim language is unclear whether the system of requires ambient air containing CO2 to read on the claims. Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, recites embodiments for both an ionizing component and a deionizing component, while Claim 1 (upon which Claim 15 is dependent) requires only the option of the ionizing or deionizing component. Claim 16 is therefore considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether the ionizing component is required or simply having the deionizing component is enough to read on the claim. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the ionizing unit is required.
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 recites “a microprocessor or microcontroller for receiving the signal, for comparing the measured resistivity with a desired resistivity…and as needed, for deionizing the water by passing the water through a deionizing cartridge or for ionizing the water by bubbling air containing CO2 within the water”; however, this limitation is considered indefinite because the claim only actively claims the microprocessor/microcontroller and neither the deionizing cartridge nor air containing CO2. Since Claim 20 does not actively claim said cartridge or air, the claim is unclear whether these parts are necessary to read on the claim. Instead, the microprocessor/microcontroller only seems to need the function of sending the water to be treated via deionizing or ionizing without actually doing so. In an alternative interpretation, a reference could read on the claim by simply keeping the resistivity could just be kept within the claimed range and not requiring the deionizing/ionizing components (thusly comprising only the microprocessor/microcontroller). For these reasons, the claim is considered indefinite. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the system needs BOTH the deionizing cartridge and the ionizing air containing CO2 to read on the claims. Note that new prior art may be introduced in a later Office action if the applicant amends the claim in a manner that clarifies and simplifies the issues within language.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Heiss discloses a system for providing conditioned water (Abstract; Figure 1; method of using system to condition water for drinking), comprising:
a holding reservoir for receiving intake water from a water source, the intake water of unknown water quality (Figure 1; Paragraph [0027]; Paragraph [0033]; storage tank 14 for water from source 1);
a first pump for pressurizing the system (Figure 1; Paragraph [0033]; at least pump 17);
a plurality of controllable valves to control water flow paths through the system (Figure 1; Paragraph [0033]; see valves and sensors corresponding with the UF modules);
a sensor for measuring water quality of the water in the holding reservoir or water flowing out from the holding reservoir and for producing a signal representative of a measured water quality (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]; Paragraph [0034]; see turbidity 12, TOC 13 for measurements within tank 14; turbidity 21, chlorine 22 and conductivity 23 for downstream of tank 14);
a device for receiving the signal, for comparing the measured water quality with a desired water quality range or a desired water quality value, and for producing conditioned water by controlling predetermined ones of the controllable valves to deionize the water by subjecting the water to a deionizing component (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0033]-[0041]; see ACS; control of flow through UF modules 18/19, clean/flush cycles, and recirculation through reverse osmosis banks 33 and 39, wherein UF/RO modules/banks are deionization cartridges); and
an output valve for controlling outflow of pressurized conditioned water from the system (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; see that outputted water from reverse osmosis banks 33 and 39 either is outputted for use or recirculates for further treatment; indicating a valve at the end to make such redirection of the water).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the water source supplies water from any source (Abstract; water from virtually any source).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses comprising controlling the output valve to supply the conditioned water to a humidification chamber or to an environmental chamber for use in humidifying the humidification or the environmental chamber (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; see storage tank 44, which is humidified by water coming from ozone contact chamber 42 and upstream membranes 33 and 39).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 3, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein condensate water from the humidification chamber or from the environmental chamber is supplied to the lower reservoir, water in the lower reservoir combined with water from the holding reservoir by opening or closing predetermined valves to create a water flow path that mixes water from the lower reservoir with water from the holding reservoir (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; storage tank 44 has lower reservoir at bottom, condensate formed due to humidification and other processes will collect with water entering storage tank 44 from holding reservoir further upstream that has been treated with RO membrane banks 33 and 39).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 4, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses comprising a bleed bypass line for feeding back conditioned water from proximate the output valve to a prior system component to prevent water stagnation (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; see recirculation line).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the intake water is supplied to the holding tank reservoir automatically from the water source (Figure 1; Paragraph [0027]; ACS is in control even at first upstream components).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the device comprises a microprocessor or a microcontroller (Paragraph [0027]; Paragraph [0033]; advanced control system/ACS comprises at least a microprocessor).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses one or more of a filter cartridge and an ultra-violet purifier, wherein water flows through the filter cartridge and the ultra-violet purifier, the ultra-violet purifier for disinfecting the water (Figure 1; Paragraph [0033]; Paragraph [0035]; UF modules 18/19; UV light 27).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the deionizing component comprises a deionizing cartridge (Figure 1; Paragraph [0033]; Paragraph [0038]; Paragraph [0040]; at least the reverse osmosis banks are deionizing cartridges).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 1, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein pressurized water flows through the output valve in an open state to a humidification or environmental chamber (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; see storage tank 44, which is humidified by water coming from ozone contact chamber 42 and upstream membranes 33 and 39).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Claim 1, upon which Claim 18 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the water is continually conditioned by opening or closing one or more of the plurality of the controllable valves to subject the water to the deionizing component as determined by the sensor device (Paragraph [0041]; conductivity readings determine how many times water must recirculate through the RO membranes).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530.
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. While Heiss is silent on the range of resistivity recited in the instant claim, the reference does disclose monitoring of conductivity (reciprocal of resistivity) to determine how many times the water should pass through the reverse osmosis banks (39) (Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]). It would then be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to run the water through the reverse osmosis membrane to achieve the desired level of conductivity/resistivity of the outputted water, especially within the broad range of resistivities (i.e., covering multiple orders of magnitudes) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A. and B. covering routine optimization and results effective variables for more detail.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, in view of Clark et al. (herein referred to as “Clark”, US Pat Pub. 2018/0251385).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 5, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein the prior system component comprises the lower reservoir (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; see storage tank is part of recirculation loop).
However, Heiss is silent on further comprising a water level switch for determining a water level in the lower reservoir.
Clark discloses a water treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treatment water using a tank/reservoir (Abstract). Clark further discloses level detectors within the tank/reservoir in order to determine the liquid level within the tank (Paragraph [0046]; see tank and high/low level detectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lower reservoir of Heiss by further comprising a water level switch in the lower reservoir as taught by Clark because Clark discloses such a switch will determine the liquid level within the tank (Clark, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Heiss is silent on the holding reservoir comprising upper and lower water level detectors.
Clark discloses a water treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treatment water using a tank/reservoir (Abstract). Clark further discloses a holding reservoir comprising upper and lower water level detectors each for supplying a water level indication for use during a manual or automatic supply of intake water to the holding reservoir in order to determine the liquid level within the tank (Paragraph [0046]; see tank and high/low level detectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the holding reservoir of Heiss to further comprise the upper and lower water level detectors as taught by Clark because Clark discloses such a switch will determine the liquid level within the tank (Clark, Paragraph [0046]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, in view of Zhu, CN 107162142A.
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Heiss is silent on the use of silicone dioxide.
Zhu discloses a water purifying composition and preparation method and application thereof in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating and purifying water (Abstract). Zhu further discloses the application of silicone dioxide as an antimicrobial substance that prevents bacteria growth in water (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wetted surfaces of certain system components of Heiss to comprise an antimicrobial silicone dioxide coating as taught by Zhu because Zhu discloses such silicone dioxide prevents bacteria growth in water (Zhu, Paragraph [0024]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, in view of Zhang, CN 107662991A.
Regarding instant Claims 12 and 13, Claim 11, upon which Claims 12 and 13 are dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss discloses filter cartridges (Figure 1; Paragraph [0033]; Paragraph [0035]; UF modules 18/19) and flocculation of particulate matter (Figure 1; Paragraph [0032]; coagulant 16).
However, Heiss is silent on a sediment filter for absorbing particulates and thereby reducing particulates in the water, a material of the filter cartridge comprising carbon briquettes.
Zhang discloses an ultrapure water production system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of purifying water (Abstract). Zhang further discloses the use of a sediment filter comprising activated carbon briquettes in order to help remove flocculated particulate from the water undergoing treatment (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the filter cartridges of Heiss to further comprise the sediment filter for absorbing particulates and thereby reducing particulates in the water, a material of the filter cartridge comprising carbon briquettes, as taught by Zhang because Zhang discloses sediment filters and carbon briquettes can help remove particulate material from water undergoing treatment (Zhang, Paragraph [0015]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, in view of Thomas et al. (herein referred to as “Thomas”, US Pat Pub. 2019/0127253).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Heiss further discloses wherein ambient air is input to water in a flow path from the holding reservoir by action of a second pump (Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; ozone 41 along with ambient air injected via second pump into water via contact chamber 42).
However, the reference is silent on the ambient air comprising CO2.
Altman discloses a system and methods for wastewater and produced water cleaning and reclamation in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water (Abstract). Altman further discloses the introduction of carbon dioxide to water, as it lowers the pH for further treatment procedures and aids in the removal of hydrocarbons from the water stream (Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ambient air of Heiss to further include CO2 as taught by Altman because Altman discloses such gases like carbon dioxide lower the pH of water to be treated and aids in the removal of hydrocarbons from the water stream (Altman, Paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, in view of Thomas et al. (herein referred to as “Thomas”, US Pat Pub. 2019/0127253).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 1, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Heiss is silent on a check valve.
Thomas discloses a method and device for treating water condensed from water vapor contained in the air, and related method and system for generating potable water in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating condensed water (Abstract). Thomas further discloses a check valve in a conduit in order to prevent water from flowing back within the pipe (Paragraph [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system locations of Heiss to further comprise the one or more check valves as taught by Thomas because Thomas discloses such a check valve will prevent water from flowing back within the pipe (Thomas, Paragraph [0123]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 12/23/2025