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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-20 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/280,830 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘830 fall within the scope of claims 1-15 of the instant invention, and therefore claims 1-15 of the instant invention are anticipated by claims 1-20 or obvious in view of claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘830.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the copending claims recite a water treatment system (see copending claims 1-20), comprising:
a prefiltration unit for filtering untreated water in fluid communication with a source of the untreated water, wherein the untreated water enters the prefiltration unit and the prefiltration unit produces a prefiltered water that exits the prefiltration unit (see copending claims 1 and 9);
a pump in fluid communication with the prefiltration unit, wherein the pump selectively increases a flow rate of the prefiltered water in a first line (see copending claims 1 and 9);
a membrane element for removing solutes from the prefiltered water in fluid communication with the pump via the first line (see copending claims 1 and 9), wherein the membrane element produces a permeate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a first concentration of solutes and a retentate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a second concentration of solutes, wherein the first concentration of solutes is less than the second concentration of solutes (see copending claims 1 and 9);
a tank in fluid communication with the membrane element and the prefiltration unit, wherein the tank stores prefiltered water from the prefiltration unit and the permeate from the membrane element (see copending claim 15);
one or more valves for regulating flow of the prefiltered water and the permeate (see copending claim 5) ; and
one or more sensors, wherein a first sensor of the one or more sensors is positioned upstream of the membrane element and is adapted to measure a first characteristic of the prefiltered water (see copending claim 2).
Dependent claims 2-15 further refine features recited in claim 1 or include additional features that are either anticipated or obvious in light of claims 1-20, therefore dependent claims are rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/280,886 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘886 fall within the scope of claims 1-15 of the instant invention, and therefore claims 1-15 of the instant invention are either anticipated by claims 1-20 or obvious in view of claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘886.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the copending claims recite a water treatment system (see copending claims 1-20), comprising:
a prefiltration unit for filtering untreated water in fluid communication with a source of the untreated water, wherein the untreated water enters the prefiltration unit and the prefiltration unit produces a prefiltered water that exits the prefiltration unit (see copending claims 1 and 17);
a pump in fluid communication with the prefiltration unit, wherein the pump selectively increases a flow rate of the prefiltered water in a first line (see copending claims 1 and 17);
a membrane element for removing solutes from the prefiltered water in fluid communication with the pump via the first line (see copending claims 1 and 17), wherein the membrane element produces a permeate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a first concentration of solutes and a retentate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a second concentration of solutes, wherein the first concentration of solutes is less than the second concentration of solutes (see copending claims 11-12);
a tank in fluid communication with the membrane element and the prefiltration unit, wherein the tank stores prefiltered water from the prefiltration unit and the permeate from the membrane element (see copending claim 3);
one or more valves for regulating flow of the prefiltered water and the permeate (see copending claim 1) ; and
one or more sensors, wherein a first sensor of the one or more sensors is positioned upstream of the membrane element and is adapted to measure a first characteristic of the prefiltered water (see copending claims 1, 12 and 17).
Dependent claims 2-15 further refine features recited in claim 1 or include additional features that are either anticipated or obvious in light of claims 1-20, therefore dependent claims are rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/280,847 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘847 fall within the scope of claims 1-15 of the instant invention, and therefore claims 1-15 of the instant invention are anticipated by claims 1-20 or obvious in view of claims 1-20 of the reference application ‘847.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the copending claims recite a water treatment system, comprising:
a prefiltration unit for filtering untreated water in fluid communication with a source of the untreated water, wherein the untreated water enters the prefiltration unit and the prefiltration unit produces a prefiltered water that exits the prefiltration unit (see copending claim 1);
a pump in fluid communication with the prefiltration unit, wherein the pump selectively increases a flow rate of the prefiltered water in a first line (see copending claim 1);
a membrane element for removing solutes from the prefiltered water in fluid communication with the pump via the first line (see copending claim 1), wherein the membrane element produces a permeate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a first concentration of solutes and a retentate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a second concentration of solutes, wherein the first concentration of solutes is less than the second concentration of solutes (see copending claim 1);
a tank in fluid communication with the membrane element and the prefiltration unit, wherein the tank stores prefiltered water from the prefiltration unit and the permeate from the membrane element (see copending claim 2);
one or more valves for regulating flow of the prefiltered water and the permeate (see copending claim 11); and
one or more sensors, wherein a first sensor of the one or more sensors is positioned upstream of the membrane element and is adapted to measure a first characteristic of the prefiltered water (see copending claim 11).
Dependent claims 2-15 further refine features recited in claim 1 or include additional features that are either anticipated or obvious in light of claims 1-20, therefore dependent claims are rejected under double patenting.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 4-5, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenley (US 2013/0126430).
Regarding claim 1, Kenley teaches a water treatment system (water purification system 100), comprising:
a prefiltration unit (filtering modules 200-300) for filtering untreated water in fluid communication with a source of the untreated water (see Fig. 3), wherein the untreated water enters the prefiltration unit and the prefiltration unit produces a prefiltered water that exits the prefiltration unit (“accepts water from a source 101 and purifies it before delivering the purified water to a recipient system 900”, see ¶48);
a pump (booster pump 600) in fluid communication with the prefiltration unit, wherein the pump selectively increases a flow rate of the prefiltered water in a first line (“the pump 600 to be capable of pumping about 1.5-2.0 liters per minute”, see ¶46);
a membrane element (membrane of RO filter 800) for removing solutes from the prefiltered water in fluid communication with the pump via the first line (“reject water coming from outlet 820…high-flow recirculation pump 700 may then generate a flow rate in the recirculating reject water sufficient to boost the velocity of water to a level appropriate to maintain a relatively debris-free and sterile RO filter membrane”, see ¶69), wherein the membrane element produces a permeate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a first concentration of solutes and a retentate comprising the prefiltered water imparted with a second concentration of solutes (“product water exiting the RO product water outlet 810 a and 810 b that is not taken by the recipient system 900 may enter a storage vessel 1100 for the purpose of storing product water for later use, providing relatively solute-free and bacteria-free water to the feed loop 120 of the RO filter 800”, see ¶86), wherein the first concentration of solutes is less than the second concentration of solutes (implied in ¶86);
a tank (product storage vessel 1100) in fluid communication with the membrane element and the prefiltration unit (see Fig. 4), wherein the tank stores prefiltered water from the prefiltration unit and the permeate from the membrane element (from filtering modules 200-300 via line 1106 shown in Fig. 4);
one or more valves (check valves 136, three-way valve 410, three-way valve 823, valve 1108 and valve 1100) for regulating flow of the prefiltered water and the permeate (“the three-way valve 410 to close, open, or partially open the bypass flow path 440”, see ¶59; “three-way valve 823 may be electronically controlled by a controller receiving information from sensor 822”, see ¶73); and
one or more sensors (conductivity sensor, 116, pressure transducer 117, the flow rate sensor 821, water conductivity sensor 822), wherein a first sensor of the one or more sensors is positioned upstream of the membrane element (Fig. 3 shows conductivity sensor 116 upstream of the RO filter 800) and is adapted to measure a first characteristic of the prefiltered water (i.e. conductivity).
Regarding claim 4, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the prefiltration unit (filters 200 and 300) is provided in the form of a sediment filter (sediment filter 200) in the form of a membrane with a pore size of no more than about 5 microns (“5-micron coarse sediment filter 200 can be used to remove particulates”, see ¶54), and an activated carbon filter (filter module 300; these filters comprise activated carbon, see ¶58).
The term “membrane sediment filter” is not a recognized as technical term in the art; therefore, the claimed filter membrane sediment filter is construed as a filter media in light of the instant spec.
Regarding claim 5, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, further comprising a feeder (disinfection/chemical additive port 110) in fluid communication with and positioned downstream of the prefiltration unit (see Fig. 3), the feeder configured to provide a chemical additive to the prefiltered water (i.e. disinfection/chemical additive).
Regarding claim 7, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the membrane element (i.e. membrane of RO filter 800) comprises at least one of a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane (i.e. RO filter)…
Regarding claim 8, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a pressure sensor (i.e. pressure transducer 117)…a flowmeter (i.e. flow rate sensor 821)…a temperature sensor (temperature/conductivity sensor 116).
Regarding claim 9, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more valves (i.e. check valves 136, three-way valve 823, valve 1108 and valve 1100) comprises at least one of …a check valve (i.e. check valve)… a flow control valve (“valves 1108 and 1110 may be actuated by a controller”, see ¶87), a pressure regulator (“valve may be back-pressure regulator”, see ¶43 ), or a pressure relief valve (“valve may be a relief valve that provides gradual pressure relief”, see ¶43).
Regarding claim 10, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second sensor of the one or more sensors (i.e. conductivity sensor, 116, pressure transducer 117, the flow rate sensor 821, water conductivity sensor 822), wherein the second sensor (i.e. water conductivity sensor 822) is positioned downstream of the membrane element (see Fig. 3) and is adapted to measure a second characteristic of the permeate (i.e. conductivity); and
a controller (programmable controller, see ¶23) in electronic communication with the one or more sensors, the one or more valves, and the pump (“programmable controller…to monitor fluid pressure, temperature, and conductivity…a variable displacement pump responding to a controller receiving data from pressure sensors in the fluid circuit…the controller can cause a drain valve to be opened once the conductivity of the water has reached a selected value”, see ¶23).
Regarding claim 11, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 10, wherein the controller is designed to receive a first input from the first sensor related to the first characteristic and a second input from the second sensor related to the second characteristic (the controller is capable of receiving input data, see ¶23), and wherein the controller determines whether to adjust the one or more valves and the pump after making a determination at least partially dependent on the first input and the second input (“the controller can cause a drain valve to be opened once the conductivity of the water has reached a selected value”, see ¶23; therefore, the controller is capable of performing the claimed adjustments based on received sensor input).
Regarding claim 12, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 11, wherein the adjustment of the one or more valves is to open at least a first valve of the one or more valves (“the controller can cause a drain valve to be opened once the conductivity of the water has reached a selected value”, see ¶23; therefore, the controller is capable of performing the claimed adjustment).
Regarding claim 13, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the water treatment system is configured to provide a flushing fluid to the membrane element at predetermined intervals (“chemical can be circulated through various flow paths in system 100 for a pre-determined time period, followed by a pre-determined series of flush cycles using fresh source water”, see ¶105), and wherein the flushing fluid is selected from the group consisting of the prefiltered water, the permeate, a prefiltered water including a chemical additive, a permeate water including the chemical additive , or combinations thereof (the system is capable of operating with flushing fluid from any source, see ¶22-¶23, ¶102 and ¶105).
Regarding claim 15, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1 further comprising a second line (corresponds to line from pump 600) in fluid communication with the tank (i.e. storage vessel 1100) and the pump (i.e. pumps 600, 700), wherein the permeate from the tank flows through the second line toward the pump at predetermined intervals (“allowing the feed-water pump 600 to cycle off for periods of time”, see ¶70) and the permeate is used to clean the membrane element (i.e. membrane of RO filter 800).
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenley (US 2013/0126430) in view of Smallhorn (US 2017/0152152).
Regarding claim 3, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1.
Kenley does not teach a riser tube disposed in the tank, wherein the prefiltration unit is in fluid communication with the tank via the riser tube and the riser tube provides the prefiltered water to a bottom portion of the tank.
In a related field of endeavor, Smallhorn teaches a water treatment system tank and method of assembly (see ABS) comprising a riser tube (riser pipe 115) disposed in the tank (tank 105, 380), wherein the prefiltration unit (pre-filter 305) is in fluid communication with the tank via the riser tube (see Fig. 1) and the riser tube provides the prefiltered water to a bottom portion of the tank (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tank of Kenley by incorporating a riser tube in the tank in communication with the prefiltration unit as disclosed by Smallhorn because it is incorporating a known riser pipe device to a known water treatment system for achieving the predictable result of allowing fluid transfer into the tank with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 14, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 1.
Kenley does not teach a riser tube disposed in the tank, wherein the prefiltration unit is in fluid communication with the tank via the riser tube.
In a related field of endeavor, Smallhorn teaches a water treatment system tank and method of assembly (see ABS) comprising a riser tube (riser pipe 115) disposed in the tank (tank 105, 380), wherein the prefiltration unit (pre-filter 305) is in fluid communication with the tank via the riser tube (see Fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenley (US 2013/0126430) in view of Sendelius (US 2020/0129927).
Regarding claim 6, Kenley teaches the water treatment system of claim 5.
Kenley does not teach that the chemical additive is provided as at least one of a polyphosphate compound or a citric acid compound.
In a related field of endeavor, Sendelius teaches a water purification apparatus and method for cleaning the water purification apparatus (see ABS) comprising a chemical additive is provided as at least one of a polyphosphate compound (“pre-treatment module 160 may alternatively or additionally be achieved using lime softening, ion-exchange resins or an anti-scalant such as polyphosphate”, see ¶255) or a citric acid compound (“container 392 may also include additives provided together with the acid (such as with citric acid)”, see ¶268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kenley by configuring the chemical additive as at least one of a polyphosphate compound or a citric acid compound as disclosed by Sendelius because it inhibits microbiological growth (Sendelius, see ¶268) and also serves to act as an anti-scaling agent and removes residues left after a cold-water flush (Sendelius, see ¶167 and ¶255).
Pertinent Prior Art
The closest prior art reference to claim 2 is Taylor (USPN 2,304,610). Taylor teaches a process of washing resins (see ABS) comprising a washing tank 40 having a water inlet connected to sprayer head 50 which provides water to a top portion of the washing tank 40 and a filtrate inlet connected to a valved pipe line 36 which provides pre-filtered/pre-treated water to a bottom portion of the washing tank 40. Taylor further discloses that water leaving from pipe 48 is pure water (see C6/L15-25). Although Taylor teaches similar plumbing connections, Taylor does not teach a second line in fluid communication with a permeate outlet of the membrane element and a top portion of the tank, wherein the second line provides the permeate from the element top portion of the tank in combination with a third line in fluid communication with the prefiltration unit and a bottom portion of the tank, wherein the third line provides the prefiltered water to the bottom portion of the tank, wherein the prefiltered water is imparted with a third concentration of solutes that is greater than the first concentration of solutes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ 9*99*9*999whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 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, Benjamin L. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights