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 6, 7 and 10-13 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 6 recites “an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water”. Claim 6 is deemed indefinite.
First, it’s unclear how the first treatment process can be controlled prior to the second treatment being completed. That is, it is unclear how the addition of the first treatment process is controlled after the completion of the second treatment process, which has yet to occur.
Second, the control process is controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the second treatment process. However, the second treatment process does not add urea decomposition agent. Regarding the second reasoning and for the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is understood as:
an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or controlling an amount of the at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid added in the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water.
Claims 6, 7 and 10-13 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
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.
Claims 6, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20130048558A1 (hereinafter US 558) in view of https://www.promagenviro.com/solutions/remote-water-treatment-systems (published April 14, 2017; retrieved June 1, 2026) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 6, US 558 discloses a urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0026).
US 558 discloses a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011, 0026, 0027, 0030, 0045, 0064, 0070, 0076, 0087 (US 558 discloses that it is known in the art to add the combination of sodium bromide and sodium hypochlorite to water to decompose urea (see US 558 paragraph 0004).
US 558 does not disclose a “a second treatment process in which at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 558.
US 558 discloses a subsequent treatment means, performed after bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent treatment process that produces a pretreated water (see US 558 figure 1, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0035-0037, 0049-0052, 0054-0055). US 558 discloses that the subsequent treatment means may be the addition of biodegradable organic substances and/or ammoniac nitrogen source, such as ammonium chloride, to the pretreated water (see US 558 claim 2 and paragraphs 0012, 0026, 0036-0037, 0049-0055). US 558 discloses that “when free chlorine exists in supply water of the bio-treatment and ammonium salt, etc. is added as an ammoniac nitrogen source, free chlorine reacts with ammonium ion to generate combined chlorine (chloramine). … Combined chlorine is said to be a component having lower oxidation power compared with free chlorine, however, it is also known that free chlorine is generated again from combined chlorine due to equilibrium reaction. Therefore, there is a possibility of causing oxidation degradation in the primary pure water treatment system, etc. in a later step” (emphasis added) (see US 558 paragraph 0055; see also US 558 paragraph 0018). In Example 2 of US 558, US 558 discloses “ water passing without adding ammonium chloride up to the seventh day of the water passing, the urea concentration of the supply water was 100 to 120 μm/L, a urea concentration of the oxidation treated water was 60 to 75 μm/L and a urea concentration of the treated water was about 40 μm/L. Next, on the seventh day from the start of water passing, ammonium chloride (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd.) as an ammoniac nitrogen source was started to be added to the raw water W on a steady basis, so that the ammonium ion concentration became about 0.5 mg/L (in terms of NH4 +). As a result, from around the 15th day from the start of passing water (8 days after starting to add ammonium chloride), a gradual decline of urea was observed, and on the 25th day after starting the water passing (about 18 days after starting to add ammonium chloride), the urea concentration of the biologically treated water became stable at 3 μg/L or lower” (emphasis added) (see US 558 paragraphs 0092-0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a subsequent chloride oxidation addition step in the system and method of US 558 because US 558 discloses that a chlorine-based oxidation agent, such as sodium hypochlorite, would assist with degrading urea, because US 558 has established that urea is still present in the pretreated water (see US 0092) and/or because US 558 discloses a benefit of increased urea degradation by the addition of free chlorine in a later step (see US 558 paragraph 0094). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to incorporate a second treatment process of adding a chlorine-based oxidation agent in US 558 because US 558 discloses that the additional chlorine will assist with urea degradation (see US 558 paragraphs 0055 and 0092-0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a subsequent chloride oxidation addition step in the system and method of US 558 since it has been held that mere duplication of an element involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. There is no patentable significance of an additional chloride oxidation step, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional reduction in urea concentration, as established in US 558, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 will necessarily 1) treat to obtain a first treated water and 2) treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
US 558 discloses a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water (see US 558 claim 6; figure 1 and paragraphs 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0031, 0038, 0045, 0054 (US 558 may be added via the second supply mechanism or the fourth supply mechanism, both of which would reduce an oxidant in the second treated water).).
US 558 does not disclose a) a measurement process for measuring a TOC or a urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process, and b) an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water.
NPL discloses a water treatment system comprising a water system controller, chemical metering pump and sensor system (see NPL section: Equipment Used pages 2-3). NPL discloses that the system allows one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor feature(s) of the water, such as chlorine or urea in the water, via the sensor system, to send the data obtained by the sensor to the controller and then the controller will adjust or control the addition of a chemical based via the metering pump based on said obtained data (see NPL sections: A Proven Track Record-Flowmeters and Other sensors pages 1-3). NPL discloses that “Promag Enviro stocks a full range of sensors, level controllers, and flow meters to help build your remote water treatment system” (see NPL page 4) and discloses that any 4-20mA sensor may be used (see NPL page 2 section: W600 Free Chlorine Controllers). NPL discloses that the controller provides variable sensor input configurations, remote communications, and continuously reading capabilities (see NPL page 2 section W600 Chlorine Controller). NPL discloses that the sensor system is low maintenance way, cost effective and reliable solution for continuously measuring chlorine as well as other parameters (see NPL page 3 section Free Chlorine Sensors and pages 3-4 section Flowmeters and Other Sensors). NPL discloses the chemical metering pump, in connection with the sensor system and the controller, is capable of providing a proportional control of the chemical to be added/adjusted, to be capable of increasing or decreasing the addition of a chemical based on the data/controller, and/or “control ensures a continuous and stable output of chlorine to the system without the need of having a person on-site” (see NPL page 3 section EWN-EFS-Self-Priming Chemical Pump System).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water treatment system to monitor impurity/impurities in water.
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). NPL is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. removing impurities in water (see Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 0002-0004).), because NPL is directed towards a system that will measure if said impurities are present in water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 by incorporating the water treatment system of NPL, comprising a controller, chemical metering pump and a sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, to measure the urea concentration at various points in the treatment of the raw water, such as at the beginning of the method, after the oxidated treated water, after the biologically treated water and/or at the end of the method, as disclosed in US 558 (see US 558 figure 3; paragraphs 0073, 0086, 0089-0090,), with the sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with information about the condition of the raw water and the water as it goes through the treatment process and the water after treatment and because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with information about the how well or not well the treatment process was working.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 by incorporating the water treatment system of NPL, comprising a controller, chemical metering pump and a sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, by measuring the urea concentration, as disclosed in US 558 (see US 558 paragraph 0073), because it would assist with providing one of ordinary skill in the art with data about the fluid, via the sensors, assist with sending the data to a controller that can assist with adjusting the pumping of chemicals, such as the urea decomposition agent in the first treatment process, and/or the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid in the second treatment process, based on said data and/or because it would assist with automating the system, which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with ease of use of the method and/or reduce cost of operating the system and/or because US 558 discloses adjusting the addition of bromide salt and an oxidizing agent in relation to the monitored urea concentration (see US 558 paragraphs 0027, 0046, 0086, 0087), and NPL provides a means for monitoring, controlling and adjusting via a pump, which US 558 is silent to.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify the method and system of US 558 in view of NPL to incorporate a sensor that measures urea concentration in addition to or in place of chlorine, to obtain data regarding urea concentration in place of or in addition to chlorine concentration and to control reagents to treat urea with the pump.
In the alternative, if US 558 in view of NPL does not disclose performing the reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 558 in view of NPL.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to performing the reduction process of US 558 in view of NPL after the completion of the second process step/after obtaining the second treated water in US 558 in view of NPL because it would assist with reducing degradation of apparatuses/devices in the system (US 558 discloses “may cause oxidation degradation of members of apparatuses in treatments in later steps, therefore, a reduction treatment is performed to make the combined chlorine compounds safe” (see US 558 paragraph 0018).), and/or US 558 discloses supplying a reducing agent after a bio-treatment means (see US 558 figure 1 and paragraphs 0026, 0038), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a reducing agent in a later step of the process and/or because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce any outflow of oxidizing agents and/or biological/bacteria present in the treated water in a later step (see US 558 paragraph 0054).
Hence, US 558 in view of NPL is deemed to disclose an urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated, comprising a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water, and a second treatment process in which at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water, a measurement process for measuring a TOC or a urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process, an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water, and a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water.
Regarding claim 7, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6.
US 558 in view of NPL does not disclose a treatment time of the second treatment process is shorter than a treatment time of the first treatment process.
However, differences in time will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such time period is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed time period of the first and second treatment steps in US 558 in view of NPL. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
US 558 in view of NPL discloses a time period must be occurring during an oxidation treatment (see US 558 paragraphs 0070, 0076, 0087). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time period of the first and second oxidation steps in the method and system of US 558 in view of NPL because it would assist with controlling the oxidation reaction/degrading reaction and/or because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with understanding how much reactant to add in the second process, via water treatment system of US 558 in view of NPL.
Regarding claim 10, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of NPL discloses a method for producing pure water comprising the urea treatment method as a pre-treatment process (see rejection of claim 1; see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2; claim 7 and paragraphs 0019-0020, 0059-0064) and a treatment process, downstream of the pre-treatment process, including treatment of the second treated water by at least one of a filtration apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0040, 0060-0062), an ion-exchange apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0035, 0060-0062, 0074, 0090), or a reverse osmosis membrane apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0035, 0060, 0062).
Regarding claim 11, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the chlorine-based oxidation agent is a hypochlorite (see US 558 paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0030, 0070, 0087).
US 558 in view of NPL discloses “raw water W was added with sodium bromide (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd., NaBr) in an amount of 2 mg/L and sodium hypochlorite (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd.) in an amount of 2 mg/L (as an effective chlorine concentration) and supplied to a reaction tank 3, wherein two tanks are arranged in series, with a residence time of 15 minutes to perform an oxidation treatment. During this time, sodium bromide and sodium hypochlorite were added to the first reaction tank and pH in the first reaction tank was referred to and adjusted to be 5.5 to 6.0 by adding sulfuric acid” (see US 558 paragraph 0087).
US 558 in view of NPL does not disclose the mineral acid, which is added in the second treatment process, is selected from the group consisting of hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second treatment process of US 558 in view of NPL by adding sulfuric acid, as disclosed in US 558, in both the first and second treatment process of US 558 in view of NPL because it would assist with controlling the pH of the water and/or because it would assist with reducing the concentration of urea in the treated water (Figure 3 of US 558 illustrates that when the sulfuric acid is added in Example 2 (see US 558 paragraphs 0084- 0087) the treated water achieved near zero concentration of urea by day 25 (see US 558 figure 3).).
Regarding claim 12, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of NPL discloses when the mineral acid is added, the pH of the water is adjusted to 4 to 6 (see rejection of claim 11; see US 558 paragraph 0087). US 558 in view of NPL discloses when chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the water, the chlorine-based oxidation agent is added such that the free residual chlorine level is 1 to 10 mg/L (see US 558 paragraph 0045).
US 558 in view of NPL does not disclose when the mineral acid is added to the first treated water, the pH of the first treated water is adjusted to 4 to 6, and when the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water, the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent is added such that the free residual chlorine level is 1 to 10 mg/L.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a similar pH and/or free residual chlorine level in second treatment process, as with the first treatment process, in US 558 in view of NPL, because it would assist with the degrading of urea in the raw water and/or assist with achieving pure water and/or because one of ordinary skill in the art would use the guidance of the first treatment process when forming the second treatment process.
Regarding claim 13, US 558 in view of NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of NPL discloses that , in a state in which at least the mineral acid is added to the first treated water, the pH of the first treated water is adjusted to a pH of 4 to 6 in the second treatment process (see rejection of claims 11-12).
Claims 6, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130048558A1 (hereinafter US 558) in view of US 20110278222 A1 (hereinafter US 222) and https://www.promagenviro.com/solutions/remote-water-treatment-systems (published April 14, 2017; retrieved June 1, 2026) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 6, US 558 discloses a urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0026).
US 558 discloses a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011, 0026, 0027, 0030, 0045, 0064, 0070, 0076, 0087 (US 558 discloses that it is known in the art to add the combination of sodium bromide and sodium hypochlorite to water to decompose urea (see US 558 paragraph 0004).
US 558 does not disclose a second treatment process in which at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water.
US 222 discloses a method and system of achieving ultrapure water and degrading urea in raw water (see US 222 abstract, figure 1 and paragraphs 0001, 0016-0029). US 222 discloses the method comprises a chlorine-based oxidizer step followed by a biological treatment means (see US 222 claim 1 and paragraphs 00016-0029, 0039, 0041, 0047-0052, 0059). US 222 discloses that the “adding chlorine based oxidizer having a concentration of more than 5 times by weight, preferably 5-8 times by weight the ammonium nitrogen of treated water of the biological treatment means in terms of Cl2, all or a portion of the ammonium nitrogen is degraded to nitrogen (N2) by the chlorine based oxidizer and is removed. Thus, biological treatment inhibition of urea by ammonium nitrogen is prevented, and large quantities of urea can be removed in the biological treatment means. As a result, high quality ultrapure water having an extremely low TOC concentration can be obtained” (see US 222 paragraph 0026; see also US 222 paragraphs 0016, 0041-0044). US 222 discloses
ammonium nitrogen is present in water, as the amount of added chlorine based oxidizer increases, residual chlorine concentration, which corresponds to the sum of combined chlorine concentration and free chlorine concentration of water, rises as combined chlorine concentration, but from the point where the amount of added chlorine based oxidizer reaches 4-5 times the ammonium nitrogen amount by weight in terms of Cl2, residual chlorine concentration begins to fall. This shows that the ammonium nitrogen present in the water is degraded to nitrogen by the chlorine based oxidizer according to the following reaction equation. Adding the chlorine based oxidizer in an amount of about 8 times the amount of the ammonium nitrogen by weight in terms of Cl2 completely degrades the ammonium nitrogen present in the water to nitrogen and thus, the ammonium nitrogen is removed. 2NH3+2NaOC→2NH2Cl (combined chlorine)+2NaOH / 2NH2Cl+NaOCl→N2 (air diffused)+3HCl+NaOH Accordingly, in the present invention, adding chlorine based oxidizer so that the Cl2/NH4—N ratio is more than 5 by weight, preferably 5-8 by weight reduces the ammonium nitrogen concentration of water. Concurrently the residual chlorine (or combined chlorine) curbs the excessive proliferation of fungi breeding in the biological treatment means
(see US 222 paragraphs 0043-0044).
US 222 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. produce ultrapure water and/or chemical oxidation/chlorine-oxidation process for water treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 by incorporating a chlorine based oxidation step prior to a biological treatment means/step, as disclosed in US 222, because adding a chlorine based oxidizer in an amount of 5 to 8 times the amount of the ammonium nitrogen by weight in terms of Cl2 assists with degrading ammonium nitrogen present in water and because it would assist with the reducing the concentration of TOC and/or urea in a water treatment process and/or assist with producing ultrapure water. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resulting method and system to work as the prior art intended, i.e., produce ultrapure water.
Hence, US 558 in view of US 222 is deemed to disclose a urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated, comprising a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water, and a second treatment process in which at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 in view of US 222 will necessarily 1) treat to obtain a first treated water and 2) treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 in view of US 222 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water (see US 558 claim 6; figure 1 and paragraphs 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0031, 0038, 0045, 0054 (US 558 may be added via the second supply mechanism or the fourth supply mechanism, both of which would reduce an oxidant in the second treated water).).
US 558 in view of US 222 does not disclose a) a measurement process for measuring a TOC or a urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process, and b) an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water.
NPL discloses a water treatment system comprising a water system controller, chemical metering pump and sensor system (see NPL section: Equipment Used pages 2-3). NPL discloses that the system allows one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor feature(s) of the water, such as chlorine or urea in the water, via the sensor system, to send the data obtained by the sensor to the controller and then the controller will adjust or control the addition of a chemical based via the metering pump based on said obtained data (see NPL sections: A Proven Track Record-Flowmeters and Other sensors pages 1-3). NPL discloses that “Promag Enviro stocks a full range of sensors, level controllers, and flow meters to help build your remote water treatment system” (see NPL page 4) and discloses that any 4-20mA sensor may be used (see NPL page 2 section: W600 Free Chlorine Controllers). NPL discloses that the controller provides variable sensor input configurations, remote communications, and continuously reading capabilities (see NPL page 2 section W600 Chlorine Controller). NPL discloses that the sensor system is low maintenance way, cost effective and reliable solution for continuously measuring chlorine as well as other parameters (see NPL page 3 section Free Chlorine Sensors and pages 3-4 section Flowmeters and Other Sensors). NPL discloses the chemical metering pump, in connection with the sensor system and the controller, is capable of providing a proportional control of the chemical to be added/adjusted, to be capable of increasing or decreasing the addition of a chemical based on the data/controller, and/or “control ensures a continuous and stable output of chlorine to the system without the need of having a person on-site” (see NPL page 3 section EWN-EFS-Self-Priming Chemical Pump System).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water treatment system to monitor impurity/impurities in water.
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). NPL is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. removing impurities in water (see Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 0002-0004).), because NPL is directed towards a system that will measure if said impurities are present in water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 in view of US 222 by incorporating the water treatment system of NPL, comprising a controller, chemical metering pump and a sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, to measure the urea concentration at various points in the treatment of the raw water, such as at the beginning of the method, after the oxidated treated water, after the biologically treated water and/or at the end of the method, as disclosed in US 558 (see US 558 figure 3; paragraphs 0073, 0086, 0089-0090,), with the sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with information about the condition of the raw water and the water as it goes through the treatment process and the water after treatment and because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with information about the how well or not well the treatment process was working.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 in view of US 222 by incorporating the water treatment system of NPL, comprising a controller, chemical metering pump and a sensor system, as disclosed in NPL, by measuring the urea concentration, as disclosed in US 558 in view of US 222 (see US 558 paragraph 0073), because it would assist with providing one of ordinary skill in the art with data about the fluid, via the sensors, assist with sending the data to a controller that can assist with adjusting the pumping of chemicals, such as the urea decomposition agent in the first treatment process, and/or the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid in the second treatment process, based on said data and/or because it would assist with automating the system, which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with ease of use of the method and/or reduce cost of operating the system and/or because US 558 in view of US 222 discloses adjusting the addition of bromide salt and an oxidizing agent in relation to the monitored urea concentration (see US 558 paragraphs 0027, 0046, 0086, 0087), and NPL provides a means for monitoring, controlling and adjusting via a pump, which US 558 is silent to.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify the method and system of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL to incorporate a sensor that measures urea concentration in addition to or in place of chlorine, to obtain data regarding urea concentration in place of or in addition to chlorine concentration and to control reagents to treat urea with the pump.
In the alternative, if US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL does not disclose performing the reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to performing the reduction process of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL after the completion of the second process step/after obtaining the second treated water in US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL because it would assist with reducing degradation of apparatuses/devices in the system (US 558 discloses “may cause oxidation degradation of members of apparatuses in treatments in later steps, therefore, a reduction treatment is performed to make the combined chlorine compounds safe” (see US 558 paragraph 0018).), and/or US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses supplying a reducing agent after a bio-treatment means (see US 558 figure 1 and paragraphs 0026, 0038), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a reducing agent in a later step of the process and/or because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce any outflow of oxidizing agents and/or biological/bacteria present in the treated water in a later step (see US 558 paragraph 0054).
Hence, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL is deemed to disclose an urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated, comprising a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water, and a second treatment process in which at least one of a separate chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water to obtain a second treated water, a measurement process for measuring a TOC or a urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process, an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water, and a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water.
Regarding claim 7, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6.
US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL does not disclose a treatment time of the second treatment process is shorter than a treatment time of the first treatment process.
However, differences in time will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such time period is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed time period of the first and second treatment steps in US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses a time period must be occurring during an oxidation treatment (see US 558 paragraphs 0070, 0076, 0087). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time period of the first and second oxidation steps in the method and system of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL because it would assist with controlling the oxidation reaction/degrading reaction and/or because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with understanding how much reactant to add in the second process, via water treatment system of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL.
Regarding claim 10, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses a method for producing pure water comprising the urea treatment method as a pre-treatment process (see rejection of claim 1; see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2; claim 7 and paragraphs 0019-0020, 0059-0064) and a treatment process, downstream of the pre-treatment process, including treatment of the second treated water by at least one of a filtration apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0040, 0060-0062), an ion-exchange apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0035, 0060-0062, 0074, 0090), or a reverse osmosis membrane apparatus (see US 558 paragraphs 0035, 0060, 0062).
Regarding claim 11, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the chlorine-based oxidation agent is a hypochlorite (see US 558 paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0030, 0070, 0087).
US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses “raw water W was added with sodium bromide (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd., NaBr) in an amount of 2 mg/L and sodium hypochlorite (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd.) in an amount of 2 mg/L (as an effective chlorine concentration) and supplied to a reaction tank 3, wherein two tanks are arranged in series, with a residence time of 15 minutes to perform an oxidation treatment. During this time, sodium bromide and sodium hypochlorite were added to the first reaction tank and pH in the first reaction tank was referred to and adjusted to be 5.5 to 6.0 by adding sulfuric acid” (see US 558 paragraph 0087).
US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL does not disclose the mineral acid, which is added in the second treatment process, is selected from the group consisting of hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second treatment process of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL by adding sulfuric acid, as disclosed in US 558, in both the first and second treatment process of US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL because it would assist with controlling the pH of the water and/or because it would assist with reducing the concentration of urea in the treated water (Figure 3 of US 558 illustrates that when the sulfuric acid is added in Example 2 (see US 558 paragraphs 0084- 0087) the treated water achieved near zero concentration of urea by day 25 (see US 558 figure 3).).
Regarding claim 12, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses when the mineral acid is added, the pH of the water is adjusted to 4 to 6 (see rejection of claim 11; see US 558 paragraph 0087). US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses when chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the water, the chlorine-based oxidation agent is added such that the free residual chlorine level is 1 to 10 mg/L (see US 558 paragraph 0045).
US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL does not disclose when the mineral acid is added to the first treated water, the pH of the first treated water is adjusted to 4 to 6, and when the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water, the separate chlorine-based oxidation agent is added such that the free residual chlorine level is 1 to 10 mg/L.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a similar pH and/or free residual chlorine level in second treatment process, as with the first treatment process, in US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL, because it would assist with the degrading of urea in the raw water and/or assist with achieving pure water and/or because one of ordinary skill in the art would use the guidance of the first treatment process when forming the second treatment process.
Regarding claim 13, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 and NPL discloses that , in a state in which at least the mineral acid is added to the first treated water, the pH of the first treated water is adjusted to a pH of 4 to 6 in the second treatment process (see rejection of claims 11-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered. The anticipation rejection has been withdrawn. The indefiniteness rejection has been revised in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the obviousness rejection(s) have been considered but are moot because Applicant's amendments and remarks do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights