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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 4-7 are currently pending
Claims 1-3 are currently canceled
Claims 4-7 are new
Claims 4-7 are currently rejected
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “and wherein the number of said flushings” and instead should state “and wherein a number of said repeated flushings” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “of said flushings” and instead should state “of said repeated flushings” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “said two cavities” and instead should state “said at least two cavities” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the console panel is operatively connected to each of the inlet valve, the circulation pump, and the first, third and fourth valves and is configured to perform” on lines 21-22 of claim 4, and “wherein the console panel is further configured to perform” on lines 1-2 of claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 4-7 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 4 recites the limitation "wherein the console panel is operatively connected to each of the inlet valve, the circulation pump, and the first, third and fourth valves and is configured to perform” on lines 21-22. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to perform, the console panel or the valves or the circulation pump? Claims 5-7 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "to claim 1,” on line 1. A claim cannot depend on a canceled claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 5 recites the limitation “in a flushing cycle” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a flushing cycle’ as recited on lines 22-23 of claim 4, or a different flushing cycle? Claim 6 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "to claim 1,” on line 1. A claim cannot depend on a canceled 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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis, III (U.S. 4,629,568) (hereinafter “Ellis”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ellis teaches a liquid purification system (see FIGS. 1-2) (see col. 1 lines 6-9 and 50-64), comprising:
a raw liquid line with an inlet valve (see FIG. 1, raw liquid line 18 and inlet valve 20) (see col. 5 lines 49-51);
a reverse osmosis membrane having a raw liquid inlet, a drainage liquid outlet and a purified liquid outlet (see FIGS. 1-2, a reverse osmosis module 10 includes a semipermeable membrane and is further connected to a drainage line (concentrate) 14, and a purified liquid line (permeate) 16) (see col. 5 lines 32-37), the reverse osmosis membrane being connected through the raw liquid inlet to the raw liquid line (see FIGS. 1-2, a reverse osmosis module 10 includes a semipermeable membrane and is further connected to a drainage line (concentrate) 14, and a purified liquid line (permeate) 16) (see col. 5 lines 32-37);
a drainage line with a first valve connected to the drainage liquid outlet of the reverse osmosis membrane (see FIG. 1, a discharge conduit 32 and a valve 42) (see col. 5 line 63 through col. 6 line 13);
a purified liquid vessel (see FIGS. 1-2, purified line 28 and purified liquid vessel (tank) 24) (see col. 5 lines 51-59);
a purified liquid line connected to the purified liquid outlet of the reverse osmosis membrane and to the purified liquid vessel (see FIGS. 1-2, purified line 28 connected to purified liquid line 16 and purified liquid vessel (tank) 24) (see col. 5 lines 51-59);
a purified liquid consumption line connected to the purified liquid vessel (see FIGS. 1-2, purified line 28 and purified liquid vessel (tank) 24) (see col. 5 lines 51-59);
a secondary purified liquid line with a second valve (see FIG. 2, lines 152 and/or 166), the secondary purified liquid line being disposed between and connected to the purified liquid vessel and the raw liquid line (see FIG. 2, lines 152 and/or 166);
a console panel (see FIG. 1, a system controller 50) (see col. 6 lines 24-25) (see col. 9 lines 5-8 and 60-62);
a circulation pump inserted into the raw liquid line upstream of the reverse osmosis membrane (see FIG. 2, lines 160, 162 and/or 147) (see FIG. 3, valves 166, 168) (see col. 8 lines 48-53) (see col. 9 lines 43-68);
a recirculation line with a third valve (see FIG. 2, lines 160, 162 and/or 147) (see FIG. 3, valves 166, 168) (see col. 8 lines 48-53) (see col. 9 lines 43-68), the recirculation line being connected at one end to the drainage line upstream of the first valve and at another end to the raw liquid line upstream of the circulation pump (see FIG. 2, lines 160, 162 and/or 147) (see FIG. 3, valves 166, 168) (see col. 8 lines 48-53) (see col. 9 lines 43-68); and
a fourth valve inserted into the purified liquid line (see FIG. 2, lines 160, 162 and/or 147) (see FIG. 3, valves 166, 168) (see col. 8 lines 48-53) (see col. 9 lines 43-68);
wherein the console panel is operatively connected to each of the inlet valve, the circulation pump, and the first, third and fourth valves (see FIG. 1, a system controller 50) (see col. 6 lines 24-25) (see col. 9 lines 5-8 and 60-62) and is configured to perform a flushing cycle by operating the inlet valve (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60), the circulation pump, and the first, third and fourth valves in such a way that a debris layer on the reverse osmosis membrane gets substantially dissolved by repeated flushings of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid in the flushing cycle (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Although Ellis teaches a flushing cycle of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60), one may broadly interpret that Ellis does not explicitly teach in such a way that a debris layer on the reverse osmosis membrane gets substantially dissolved by repeated flushings of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid in the flushing cycle, as recited in new, independent claim 4. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the liquid purification system of Ellis to further include repeated flushing of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid to totally remove all debris on the reverse osmosis membrane for optimization and to prevent damage to the reverse osmosis membrane unit (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Regarding Claim 5:
Ellis teaches the liquid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the console panel is further configured to perform the flushing cycle with the repeated flushings, and wherein the number of said flushings in a flushing cycle is not less than two and not more than six (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Although Ellis teaches a flushing cycle of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60), one may broadly interpret that Ellis does not explicitly teach the number of said flushings in a flushing cycle is not less than two and not more than six, as recited in new, dependent claim 5. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the liquid purification system of Ellis to further include repeated flushing of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid wherein the number of flushings is between two and six times for optimization and to prevent damage to the reverse osmosis membrane unit (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Regarding Claim 6:
Ellis teaches the liquid purification system according to claim 5, wherein the number of said flushings in said flushing cycle is four (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Although Ellis teaches a flushing cycle of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60), one may broadly interpret that Ellis does not explicitly teach the number of said flushings in said flushing cycle is four, as recited in new, dependent claim 6. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the liquid purification system of Ellis to further include repeated flushing of the reverse osmosis membrane with purified liquid wherein the number of flushings is four for optimization and to prevent damage to the reverse osmosis membrane unit (see col. 1 lines 58-64) (see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Regarding Claim 7:
Ellis teaches the liquid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the purified liquid vessel comprises at least two cavities separated by a flexible partition, said two cavities being a purified liquid cavity, defined by inner walls of the flexible partition, and a compressible medium cavity, defined by inner walls of a body of the purified liquid vessel and outer walls of the flexible partition, said compressible medium cavity being filled with compressible medium (see FIGS. 1-2, purified line 28 connected to purified liquid line 16 and purified liquid vessel (tank) 24) (see col. 5 lines 51-59).
Other References Considered
Vinas et al. (U.S. 5,503,735) (hereinafter “Vinas”) teaches a membrane filtration system with valves.
Gaignet (U.S. 2010/0155248 A1) (hereinafter “Gaignet”) teaches a water purification system and method.
McCormick et al. (U.S. 2013/0081715 A1) (hereinafter “McCormick”) teaches a fluid circulation valve assembly.
Shmidt et al. (U.S. 2018/0345221 A1) (hereinafter “Shmidt”) teaches a system for purifying a liquid.
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 AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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 by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights