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
Claims(s) 1-10, is/are filed on 11/8/2023 are currently pending. Claim(s) 10 is/are withdrawn without traverse, 1-9 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by TOKOSHIMA (JP 2011167633 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-9 are directed towards apparatus claims. Please note: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 1, TOKOSHIMA teaches a pure water production apparatus comprising: an ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus (3) that irradiates water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; a TOC acquisition unit (2K combines both DO and TOC) and a dissolved oxygen concentration (2K) acquisition unit that are provided upstream of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus; and control means (2V, 2P) (note: control means is interpreted as any valve or pump that operates these conditions) that controls concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that a mass ratio of the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is acquired by the dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit to TOC in the water to be treated that is acquired by the TOC acquisition unit is 1 or more and 7 or less (intended use) [0053, 007-0085].
Regarding claim 2, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that the mass ratio is 2 or more and 7 or less (intended use) [0045-0085].
Regarding claim 3, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein the TOC in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus is 10 μg/L or less (intended use) [0039].
Regarding claim 4, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that the mass ratio is 2 or more and 5 or less (intended use) [0039].
Regarding claim 5, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that a consumption rate of dissolved oxygen of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus is 90% or more (intended use) [0046-0047].
Regarding claim 6, TOKOSHIMA teaches further comprising deoxidization means (2, gas dissolution membrane module) that is positioned upstream of the dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit and the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein the deoxidization means is a deaerator apparatus (2, gas dissolution membrane module), and the concentration of dissolved oxygen is controlled by adjusting a degree of vacuum (evacuating the inside with a vacuum pump (2P)) in the deaerator apparatus [0046].
Regarding claim 8, TOKOSHIMA teaches further comprising oxygen supply means (2V) that is positioned upstream of the dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit and the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus [0047].
Regarding claim 9, TOKOSHIMA teaches wherein no oxidizing agent is added to the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus, (intended use) [0034]: “water to be treated without chemical treatment or heating treatment”.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMAKOSHI (JP H0440292 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
1191
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-9 are directed towards apparatus claims. Please note: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 1, YAMAKOSHI teaches a pure water production apparatus comprising: an ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus (1 and 2) that irradiates water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; a TOC acquisition unit (5) and a dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit (6) that are provided upstream of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus; and control means (7, 8) that controls concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that a mass ratio of the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is acquired by the dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit to TOC in the water to be treated that is acquired by the TOG acquisition unit is 1 or more and 7 or less (intended use) (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, YAMAKOSHI teaches wherein the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that the mass ratio is 2 or more and 7 or less (intended use) (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, YAMAKOSHI teaches the water production apparatus according to wherein the TOG in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus is 10 pg/L or less (intended use) (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, YAMAKOSHI teaches wherein the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that the mass ratio is 2 or more and 5 or less (intended use) (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, YAMAKOSHI teaches the control means controls the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus such that a consumption rate of dissolved oxygen of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus is 90% or more (intended use) (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, YAMAKOSHI teaches oxygen supply means (provided upstream – not shown) that is positioned upstream of the dissolved oxygen concentration acquisition unit and the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus (p. 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, YAMAKOSHI teaches no oxidizing agent is added to the water to be treated that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus (i.e. no addition to UV supply water).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights