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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/15/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Amendment(s) to the specification filed 06/15/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft, SR. et al. (U.S. 2006/0237370 A1), in view of Tally et al. (U.S. 2021/0024382 A1), Schmitt et al. (US 2020/0256478) and OH et al. (US 2016/0289110).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Craft teaches a system (refer fig. 5, fig. 6) comprising at least two fluidly linked water treatment modules (refer 31 and 32), each of the at least two water treatment modules comprising:
At least one row of media tanks, said at least one row of media tanks comprising at least two media tanks (refer fig. 5 indicating two tanks in 31 and two tanks in 32); wherein at least two media tanks in each of the said rows are fluidly connected in parallel (Refer abstract, [0031]); and wherein said media tanks are vertically oriented in said treatment module (refer fig. 5);
Wherein each row of at least one row of media tanks comprise media for removal of arsenic and iron (refer [0012], [0036]);
At least one media manifold for controlling flow of water through said at least one row of media tank (Refer fig. 3A disclosing piping with ports and valves).
Craft does not teach that the manifold comprises a solenoid, a motor, and a gate valve; and that the water treatment modules are connected to a pumping system.
Tally teaches a water treatment module (fig. 1, abstract) comprising: at least one row of media tanks; said at least one row of media tanks comprising at least two media tanks; wherein said at least two media tanks are fluidly connected in parallel; and wherein said media tanks are vertically orientated in said treatment module (Figure 1, 12 and 13; and Figure 2, 31 and 32 and 33; and Figure 7; and Figure 8; and para [0051]). Tally further teaches wherein said treatment module is fluidly connected to a pump (Figure 1; and Figure 8, 20; and Figure 20; and para [0051]). Tally further teaches wherein each of said at least one media manifold comprises at least one solenoid and at least one gate valve (Figure 19A, 901 and 904; and Figure 19B; and Figure 19C; and para [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Craft to provide a manifold including solenoid valve(s) and gate valve(s) because Tally establishes that use of solenoid and gate valves are known in water treatment systems. It would have been also obvious to provide pump to increase flow as taught by Tally.
Tally does not teach that the manifold comprises a motor, however, manifold assembly having a motor to control operation of valves is disclosed by Schmitt (refer [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a motor in the manifold to enable operation of valves.
Tally further teach a frame 11 providing support to components of the system. Tally does not disclose providing an enclosure, however, providing an enclosure around a plurality of filtration modules is known in the art. OH discloses a water treatment system comprising an enclosure 105 comprising a plurality filtration modules connected in parallel (Refer fig. 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a frame or an enclosure or both in the system of modified Craft.
Tally also teaches that the manifold is provided on top of the treatment modules (Refer fig. 1, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Craft teaches wherein three pairs of media tanks are fluidly connected in parallel (in figure 5, each of pair of parallel tanks are connected in parallel to other pairs of parallel tanks in order to accommodate greater flows).
Regarding claim 8, Craft teaches wherein all of said three pairs of media tanks contain the same media (i.e. for arsenic removal 0012).
Regarding claim 10, Tally further teaches wherein said treatment module is fluidly connected to at least one member selected from the group consisting of a filtration module, a reverse osmosis system, a pump, a calcite module, a water sterilization system, an ultrafiltration system, and combinations thereof (Figure 1; and Figure 8, 20; and Figure 20; and para [0051], FIGS. 1-8 show different views of an assembled water treatment system 10 according to this example... The system includes frame 11, filtration cartridges 12, 13 reverse osmosis cartridges 31, 32, 33, manifold 16, and pump 20; and para [0024], FIG. 20 shows a schematic view of a system according to the disclosure; and para (0092], During normal operation... FIG. 20... input water is flowed through inlet 110 and water passes through sediment filter 112 and carbon filter 114. Booster pump 116 may be used to increase flow to reverse osmosis cartridges 118, 120,122; Note that the pump used to pass water through the treatment module is interpreted as the at least one member).
Regarding claim 11, Craft teaches that the at least two treatment modules can be connected in series or in parallel (refer abstract, [0031]). Tally also teaches reverse osmosis filters (118, 120, 132) downstream of media tanks 112, 114.
Regarding claim 16, Craft teaches that the system comprises an injection module (Refer backwash inlet).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft, SR. et al. (U.S. 2006/0237370 A1), in view of Tally et al. (U.S. 2021/0024382 A1), Schmitt et al. (US 2020/0256478) and OH et al. (US 2016/0289110) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elfstrom (U.S. 2013/0098816 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 9, modified Craft teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Craft does not teach that said water treatment module comprises two rows of media tanks wherein said two rows of media tanks are fluidly linked in series; or said water treatment module comprises three rows of media tanks wherein a first row of media tanks is positioned immediately adjacent to a second row of media tanks and said second row of tanks is positioned immediately adjacent to a third row of media tanks, each row of said media tanks is in series with the row of media tanks immediately adjacent.
Elfstrom teaches a water treatment module 1, comprising: at least one row of media tanks; said at least one row of media tanks comprising two rows of media tanks wherein said two rows of media tanks are fluidly linked in series (e.g. row 50/51 is in serial communication with row 52/53, etc.). Elfstrom also teaches wherein said water treatment module comprises three rows of media tanks wherein a first row of media tanks is positioned immediately adjacent to a second row of media tanks and said second row of tanks is positioned immediately adjacent to a third row of media tanks (this is easily deduced from figure 5), wherein each row of said media tanks is in series with the row of media tanks immediately adjacent (this is easily deduced from figure 5).
Selecting whether to provide the media tanks in series or parallel would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Elfstrom establishes that it is known to use three media tanks in series, and Craft discloses that the system can be set up as lead-lag or parallel in order to have flexibility to address variations in loading and flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Elfstrom have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tally, Applicant argued that does not disclose the water treatment system having an enclosure, whereas the claimed system includes an enclosure. However, the current rejection is a combination of Craft, Tally and OH. OH teaches the claimed enclosure.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Craft, in view of Elfstrom, applicant argued that Craft or Elfstrom does not teach at least one media manifold for controlling the flow of water through each of at least one row of media tanks, where each of said media manifolds includes a solenoid, a motor and a gate valve, as in the current claims. However, the current rejection is a combination of Craft, Tally and OH which teaches the argued limitation. Refer claim rejections above.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights