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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
Note: A claim set with updated status identifiers is requested in the next response, to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c): any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled) (See MPEP 714(II)(C)(A)).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2 Units are unclear. “cult” may refer to cubic feet (cu ft). Additionally, Examiner requests clarification whether Salt Dose is in units of salt weight per resin volume or salt weight per brine/water volume.
Fig. 3 x-axis is unclear. Is each one a different regeneration cycle set to a different requested salt dose? [0033] mentions “dose retrieved”, thus Examiner interprets the doses as total NaCl mass (lbs) retrieved from brine tank(s) over the course of one regeneration cycle.
Fig. 4 The data represents discrepancy in salt dose as a function of fill time in seconds. If a fill time is programmed and the resulting actual salt dose is less than expected, it would seem that the fill time is the independent variable, given a change in salt dose achieved depends on a change in fill time [0060]. Examiner requests clarification.
both data sets have the same shape markers. The Figures are in black and white. The legend thus does not accurately differentiate the curves. Examiner suggests including the correlating reference numbers in the legend for readability.
[0060] defines 24 as “assumed” fill time, 26 as “actual” fill time and 30 as “dotted line”. The figure presents 24 and 30 as either “tested” or “no adjustment”, and 26 as the dotted line.
Examiner suggests consistency, where:
The dotted line reference number should match between figure and specification description
The terms should match between figure and specification with clarity. For example, “no adjustment” could mean this is the “actual” value, or that there was no adjustment in the calculation of the theoretical value.
Examiner interprets “tested” as “actual” and “no adjustment” as “assumed”.
Fig. 5 It is unclear whether “Salt Dose” here means theoretical salt dose.
Fig. 7 The dummy point and Max. Fill have draw times of 0 seconds but also report “Actual brine drawn lbs**” values, where the asterisks indicate experimentally determined data.. Examiner request clarification on the meaning of actual brine drawn, particularly without a draw time.
Fig. 8 according to [0072], the x-axis refers to “actual salt dose (lbs), compared to theoretical calculated results 42”. It would improve clarity to conserve the terms “Actual Salt Dose” and “Theoretical Salt Dose” in the figures, instead of “Salt Dose” used for both, or to maintain a legend, as in Fig. 4
Examiner interprets the unlabeled solid white data points to belong to the theoretical results 42 and the unlabeled spotted data points to belong to test data results 40.
Given that there are 7 spotted points and 9 solid points, it is unclear which points are being compared.
Fig. 9 Is the salt dose column theoretical or actual? Examiner recommends consistency in terms, such as the “Theoretical Salt Dose” column of Fig. 10 for similar data values.
Examiner interprets that the “calculated fill time…” column units are (sec).
Fig. 10 What are the units of the salt dose columns? Examiner suggests consistency in unit representation across figures.
Fig. 11 “Salt Dose” appears to be “Actual salt Dose” values of Fig. 10? [0041] states “a curve-fitting polynomial expression for the percent of brine achieved as a function of salt dose (lbs)”, which remains ambiguous. Examiner suggests term consistency.
Fig. 13 What is the y-axis? [0077] mentions salt (lb)/gal water. Is this a graphical representation of the measurable properties of NaCl at a given temperature, correlating %NaCl to units of lb/gal water, such as a brine table reference chart would provide? If so, Examiner suggests labeling the y- axis and unit, such as NaCl (lb/gal water).
Fig. 14 Does “salt dose” mean actual salt dose? What are the units? [0077] discloses “Fig. 14 depicts a table of the data for the calculated fill of Test Run B”. Given there are two fill time columns, does “fill time” mean adjusted/calculated fill time and “old fill” means non-adjusted fill time? Is the “gallons of fill” column pertaining to gallons of fill at the “fill time” or the expected gallons at the “old fill” time?
Examiner recommends conserving terminology across the figures and specification.
Fig. 15 salt dose (lbs)
Is this actual or theoretical/requested dose?
Fig. 16 Is this data from either of Test Run A or Test Run B? The values of Fig. 16 do not match those of Fig. 14 (Test Run B, see [0077]). A table title would clarify.
Fig. 17 Examiner interprets “Salt Dose” to mean the expected/requested salt dose. Clarification requested.
Fig. 18 Please label axes with titles and units. Examiner interprets based on [0048] that y-axis is fill time in seconds and x-axis is salt dose (calculated/requested), potentially in pounds per cubic foot resin. Examiner requests clarification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
According to Specification [0012]
“ When … brine in a water softener system is saturated, the regeneration process is initiated.”
However, [0011] describes the resin saturation point as the point when regeneration is needed, not the brine tank reaching saturation: “The resin bed will continue to … to a point where the exchange sites are reduced, and hard water can be detected in the softener output. This is referred to as the "saturation point" and is the point at which regeneration is needed”.
Examiner is unclear whether [0012] means:
When resin in a water softener system is saturated, the regeneration process is initiated OR
RINSE is not initiated until brine saturation is met in the FILL step prior to regeneration. Here, the rinse step of the regeneration cycle is considered the first step of the regeneration cycle, which would indicate a post-fill system instead of a fill-first (pre-fill) system. The summary of invention [0018] seems to indicate solving problems of a pre-fill system [0017] fill time.
According to Specification [0017]
“This deficiency is especially pronounced in smaller softeners where the volumes are lower and the regeneration times are shorter (shorter times lead to lower saturation).”
Examiner interprets this as:
smaller softeners have shorter fill step times within an overall shortened regeneration cycles compared to larger systems (as opposed to shorter rinse times lead to lower resin saturation points in subsequent operation)
AND
lower brine saturation in the fill step of a regeneration cycle (as opposed to lower resin saturation in operation).
According to Specification [0019]:
“empirically deriving a real saturation curve for a predetermined aspirator”
It is unclear whether this is a brine saturation curve.
“using and empirically generated fill time curve”
It is unclear what a fill time curve is.
According to Specification [0034] and related “salt dose” passages:
“Fig. 4 is a graph depicting an analytical expression for fill time versus actual salt dose requested”
Fig. 4 x-axis is “Salt Dose (lbs)”, much the same as Fig 5, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Fig. 15, Fig. 17, and presumably Fig. 18 if the axis were to be labeled according to [0048].
However, these figures are not disclosed to each pertain to actual salt dose requested.
Is “actual dose requested” the same as “actual dose”, or is “actual dose requested” a calculated/theoretical value, and “actual dose” is the empirical data? If the latter is the correct interpretation, then is “actual dose retrieved” [0057] the same meaning as “actual dose requested”[0048] or “actual dose”[0072], or is this a third definition?
Additionally, Fig. 2 depicts “salt dose” with units interpreted as lbs/cu ft [0055] (cu ft being interpreted as either resin or brine), but Fig. 3 is disclosed to be “actual salt dose retrieved”, disclosed as “pounds of NaCl removed from the brine tank” [0057]. It is unclear if the (lbs)- only units are meant to be total mass per regeneration cycle, or at some set cycle/volume/resin bed volume.
Examiner suggests consistency, clarity, and agreement in terms and units across all figures and across the specification. For Example, if one figure is Expected Salt Dose (lbs/cu ft resin) and the other is Actual Salt Dose Achieved (lbs/gal cu ft brine), such a distinction would greatly clarify the data to the reader.
According to Specification [0046]:
“Fig. 16 is a tabulation of the data”.
There is data from Test Run A and Test Run B.
Examiner interprets Fig. 16 depicts the data of Test Run B, given Figs. 10-15 are directed to Test Run B data [0040- 0045]. If so, Examiner suggests clarifying either with a table title, such as “Test Run B Data”, or clarifying [0046] “tabulation of the data of Test Run B”. This would also clarify whether Figs. 17-18, which use Fig. 16 data, are in fact using the data of Test Run B.
According to Specification [0050]:
“It is desirable that extra water be added depending upon the actual salt dose and fill flow rate used to obtain the desired amount of salt at a somewhat lower than expected concentration”
It is unclear where the extra is added in the system. For example, does “extra water… added depending on the actual dose” mean:
Extra water is added to the salt of the brine tank during the fill step. If so, how does this increase salt amount in a lower than expected concentration?
OR
Extra brine is added to the mineral tank in the draw step, so the total mass of salt for regeneration is maintained at a larger volume of less saturated brine.
According to Specification [0053]:
“ Although it would be preferred that the brine concentration pulled from the brine tank be 100% saturated, it is more important that the actual requested salt dose be drawn from the brine tank”
[0051] discloses “Previous software packages assumed that brine being withdrawn from the brine tank was highly saturated, on the order of 100% saturation”
If this is the case, then is the “actual requested salt dose” intended to be the calculated total mass of salt required to regenerate a mineral tank using a brine tank at 100% saturation?
Examiner recommends the definition of “dose” be consistent and clear across the specification. That would also clarify that brine concentration is not what Applicant defines as a dose.
According to Specification [0054]:
“Fig. 1 … The percent of maximum capacity 10 on the ordinate axis as a function 12 of percent of NaCl concentration 14 (abscissa) in the bed. As shown, from a concentration of 6% to 16%, the final capacity of the softener can vary by about 3% from the peak at a 100% brine concentration… A 100% concentrated brine (26.4% of NaCl in solution)”
If the x- axis is “% NaCl concentration in the bed”, Fig. 1 depicts the maximum capacity peak at approximately 10 % NaCl concentration in the bed.
If the x-axis is depicting % NaCl in solution, up to a percent value of 26, the 100% concentrated brine would be 26.4% NaCl in solution, which has a maximum capacity of approximately 87%. This is roughly 12% capacity reduction from the peak value in the 6-16% range.
“A typical venturi aspirated system has about 35% of the concentrated brine solution in it. A 100% concentrated brine (26.4% of NaCl in solution) can be mixed with the aspirated water to form a concentration mixture of about 9.2%. Thus, if a 75% concentrated brine coming from the brine tank is mixed by an aspirator, a concentrated mixture of 6.9% will result. In this scenario, the net capacity adjustment is only a drop of about 2.5%.”
For clarification, does “a concentration mixture of about 9.2%” refer to a concentration mixture of about 9.2% NaCl in the bed after draw from brine tank to mineral tank?
If so, it is unclear if the % maximum capacity for the 9.2% NaCl value in Figure 1 is meant to represent the results adjusted to 35% brine via venturi in the draw phase.
For example, is the capacity at 26% NaCl (100% brine):
the result of 100% brine fed through the venturi with no 35% dilution
the result of the 26 value on the x-axis actually being the 9.2% NaCl in solution post dilution to 35% brine.
If a), is Fig. 1 showing that typical capacity system expectations should be in the 6-16% range because that is the %NaCl in solution within a softener tank with typical venturi aspirators?
If b), then 75% of 100% brine (26.4 % NaCl) shows better capacity than 100% brine, not worse.
Examiner suggests clarifying the x-axis title of Fig. 1 to clearly represent whether it is % NaCl in the solution pre-dilution or post dilution.
According to Specification [0055]:
“Fig. 2 depicts a 12% to 14% obtainable capacity reduction if the software were to assume 100% saturated brine for a salt dose that was lower by 25%”
The Fig. 2 label discloses “14% capacity reduction”.
No error-bars, data points, or other information within Fig. 2* is depicted pertaining to 12% capacity reduction
Examiner requests clarification on the discrepancy in the capacity reduction of Fig..2 versus [0055].
“Fig. 2 depicts a 12% to 14% obtainable capacity reduction if the software were to assume 100% saturated brine for a salt dose that was lower by 25%…It has been determined that one preferrable outcome requires taking a 3% reduction in capacity due to a lower brine concentration with the correct salt dose”
Fig. 2 y-axis is obtainable capacity. According to [0054], Fig. 1 y-axis is maximum percent capacity. Examiner interprets that for % maximum and obtainable capacity values to be compared, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are result of the same system with the same obtainable capacity.
Examiner also interprets that for saturation % NaCl [0054] to be compared to salt dose lbs/ cu ft, weight of water is held constant.
“In Fig. 2, the capacity 16 is presented in grains per cubic foot, and the salt dose 18 is presented in pounds per cubic foot.”
For clarity, does this refer to cubic foot of resin in both instances?
According to Specification [0058]:
“ To obtain the correct salt dose, additional fill water must be added to the brine tank before the required amount of salt can be withdrawn”
It is unclearly stated how additional water added to the brine tank corrects the lbs/ cu ft of salt withdrawn.
“For example, referring to Fig. 4, a formula derived from the test data can be used to represent the correct fill time needed to achieve a given salt dose request.”
Examiner interprets that the fill time of the instant application as time duration for water added, and does not include a resting period for dissolution commonly associated with the term “fill time”.
According to Specification [0061]:
“Calculating the multiplier factor for each salt dose presented and graphing the multiplier factor as a function of salt dose (lbs) yields the multiplier factor curve 32 depicted in Fig. 5.”
Each salt dose presented in Fig. 4 is not included in the Fig. 5 curve. 8 theoretical salt dose values and 1 actual salt dose value presented in Fig. 4 are included in the curve that determines the multiplier factor expression.
According to [0069-0070]:
“The brine tank is filled with salt. Water is added to a level above the brine valve, the pump is utilized to remove the water to the level of the brine valve cut off. The system remains unaltered long enough to generate saturated brine in the bottom layer. This period can take 1 to 4 hours, preferably about 3 hours. Using the actual brine tank and line, water is pumped into the brine for the fill time at the fill flow rate.”
Is fill time defined in terms of time water is added after the brine generation time period?
Does each requested dose begin with the same 1 to 4 hour brine generation time period duration?
According to Specification [0071]:
“ Fig. 7 depicts a table of the Test Run A results, using experimentally determined data (denoted by **) and measured data (denoted by ^). Measured and experimentally determined values are compared to theoretical values and percentages of actual versus theoretical values are presented.”
How are experimentally determined data and measured data different from each other?
Note: Fig. 7 measured values (^) of fill time are not compared to theoretical values.
According to Specification [0072]:
“Fig. 8 depicts a graph of the actual salt dose (lbs) for a given fill time (seconds) for the test data of Test Run A”
Fig. 8, specifically the Max. Fill values, do not match Fig. 7. Both Figures are meant to represent Test Run A data. It is unclear which data represents the Test Run A data.
“ Test data results 40 are compared to the theoretical calculated results 42, and the polynomial curve 44 from a curve fitting algorithm of the test data results (dotted line) closely follows the test data results line… in Fig. 4”
A dotted line is not visible or denoted in a legend or via element reference number in Fig. 4.
According to Specification [0074] (Test Run B):
“an altered method by measuring the brine saturation as a function of time, and attempting to calculate the extra quantity of water to add to the system, based on the known concentration. However, due to the extra time to add the extra water, there is a chance for further saturation. Thus, there remains a risk of extracting too much salt in the process.”
Examiner interprets:
Test Run A adjusts fill time based on achieving a desired salt dose in mass units (lbs).
Test Run B adjusts fill time based on achieving a desired salt concentration in saturation units (%NaCl)
Both fill times adjustments increase time to add water. There is a chance of further saturation in both tests. If flow rate is conserved, a higher saturated brine will contain a higher mass of salt. Examiner requests clarification on why this may be a risk for Test Run B and not Test Run A.
According to Specification [007]:
“ The fill is calculated by utilizing the variation observed in the brine concentration against the actual salt dose delivered. Fig. 14 depicts a table of the data for the calculated fill of Test Run B.”
Does (calculated) fill mean fill time or gallons of fill?
According to Specification [0078]:
“ Fig. 15 graphs the tabulated results of Fig. 14, depicting the gallons of fill rate as a function of salt dose (lbs)” are these the adjusted gallons or the gallons of fill based on old fill? Why is this a function of salt dose and not a function of fill time or fill volume, one of which appears to be the variable adjusted in Fig. 14? If Test Run B is varied to achieve desired concentration, and Fig. 14 “salt dose” is actual salt dose delivered, then what was the desired concentration for those salt doses?
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A method of compensating for brine saturation for a water softener by determining an adjusted fill time for a brine tank, comprising:
a) calculating a non-adjusted fill time as a function of actual salt dose requested;
b) empirically deriving a real saturation curve for a predetermined aspirator with a predetermined fill flow rate and draw flow rate;
c) determining a multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time utilizing an empirically generated fill time curve;
d) calculating the fill time as a product of the non-adjusted fill time and the multiplier factor for a given salt dose; and
e) adding water to said brine tank based on an adjusted fill time.
The limitation of calculating a non-adjusted fill time, deriving a real saturation curve, determining a multiplier factor (MF), and calculating the fill time as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, calculating and deriving values in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating fill times and deriving multiplication factors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – adding water to said brine tank based on an adjusted fill time. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of applying the optimized fill time to the water addition process is well understood as taught in US-20010023841-A1, hereinafter Zimmerman, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 depend on Claim 1 and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and are also rejected. Additionally, claims 2-6 are rejected in their own right.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1 wherein said step of calculating said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested is performed by empirically deriving said non-adjusted fill time and assigning a formula to represent said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested.
The limitation of the recited mathematical calculations, as drafted, falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 2 wherein said formula of said non-adjusted fill time is derived from a curve-fit function of test data of said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested.”
The limitation of the recited mathematical relationship, as drafted, falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 3 wherein said formula of said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested is represented by the expression: Fill Time (seconds) = Salt Dose lbs/2.9865 lbs salt/gal /fill rate(gpm)*60 sec/min”
The limitation of the recited formula, as drafted, falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1 wherein said step of determining said multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time is derived from a curve-fit function of said empirically generated fill time curve against said non-adjusted fill time.
The limitation of the recited mathematical relationship, as drafted, falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 5 wherein said step of determining said multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time utilizing said empirically generated fill time curve where the MF is represented as a function of the salt dose requested (lbs).
The limitation of the recited mathematical relationship, as drafted, falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-6 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 1 recites “A method of compensating for brine saturation for a water softener by determining an adjusted fill time for a brine tank”
It is unclear what is meant by compensating for brine saturation.
The specification supports both “a risk of extracting too much salt” [0074] and “capacity reduction due to the lack of a 100% saturated brine solution” [0055].
Examiner interprets any deviation or changes of brine saturation from a predetermined value to fall within BRI of needing “compensation for brine saturation” by adjusting brink tank fill time from another fill time.
“ comprising:
a) calculating a non-adjusted fill time as a function of actual salt dose requested;”
It is unclear how to achieve this step
Examiner interprets a non-adjusted fill time to be a comparative fill time to the adjusted fill time of the preamble.
“b) empirically deriving a real saturation curve for a predetermined aspirator with a predetermined fill flow rate and draw flow rate;”
It is unclear what saturation pertains to; be it resin saturation (in light of [0011]) or brine saturation (in light of [0057]).
“c) determining a multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time utilizing an empirically generated fill time curve;”
empirically generating a fill time curve is not a positively recited component of the method and it is unclear what a fill time curve is.
“d) calculating the fill time as a product of the non-adjusted fill time and the multiplier factor for a given salt dose;”
There is no antecedent basis for the fill time
It is unclear in the claimed method how either of the multiplier factor of step c and the fill time is related to a given salt dose.
Is “a given salt dose” related to “actual salt dose requested” of step a?
“e) adding water to said brine tank based on an adjusted fill time”
It is unclear whether “an adjusted fill time” may be related to either “the fill time” of step d or “an adjusted fill time” of the preamble.
Claims 2-6 depend on Claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 3 wherein said formula of said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested is represented by the expression: Fill Time (seconds) = Salt Dose lbs/2.9865 lbs salt/gal /fill rate(gpm)*60 sec/min.
It is unclear what the recited expression variables mean
It is interpreted that the recited expression terminology is meant to be consistent with:
Fill Time is the non-adjusted fill time
Salt Dose is the actual last dose requested ( in light of Claim 1 step a)
salt/gal is dissolved NaCl per gallon of water at 60 ⁰F (in light of the known property of NaCl solubility in water; other salts and/or other temperatures will have a different solubility). Given the context of the non-adjusted fill time expression, this numerical value is interpreted as “solubility”, given that salt-specific, temperature-specific values are themselves a specific adjustment of fill time.
fill rate is predetermined fill flow rate (in light of Claim 1 step b)
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 5 wherein said step of determining said multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time utilizing said empirically generated fill time curve where the MF is represented as a function of the salt dose requested (lbs).
There is no antecedent basis for the salt dose requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20010023841-A1, hereinafter Zimmerman.
Regarding Claim 1, Zimmerman teaches a method of compensating for brine saturation for a water softener by determining an adjusted fill time for a brine tank (“The computer controller adjusts the fill time and brine time, depending on the type of regenerant salt used and on the temperatures of the brine”, Abstract; changing salt type and/or brine temperature impacts brine saturation, requiring adjustment to compensate: “when cold water is used to form the brine, a greater amount of water is required to dissolve the KCl… KCl dissolves in water at a slower rate than NaCl.”, [0012]), comprising:
a) calculating a non-adjusted fill time as a function of actual salt dose requested (“The value of D, the salt dosage, determines the amount of water that must be supplied to brine tank 34…the flow rate being a fixed quantity”, [0044]; “F = D/ (R x S), where F = fill time in minutes and D = salt dosage in pounds, R = the fill rate…and S = the solubility”, [0045])
b) empirically deriving a real saturation curve for a predetermined aspirator with a predetermined fill flow rate and draw flow rate (Table 2);
c) determining a multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time (Any of: Fig. 4 “Water Volume Equivalency” or “Water Adjustment Multiplier = l + WARFT x dT” [0071] or “Water Adjustment Rate”, [0075]) utilizing an empirically generated fill time curve (Table 2) .
d) calculating the fill time as a product of the non-adjusted fill time and the multiplier factor for a given salt dose [0059]; and
e) adding water to said brine tank based on an adjusted fill time (“the required volume of fill water and ultimately the required fill time may be calculated, as shown in Table 2. The fill the proceeds until the required fill time is approximately equal to the actual fill time”, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zimmerman teaches said step of calculating said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested is performed by empirically deriving said non-adjusted fill time (Table 2) and assigning a formula to represent said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested [0045].
Regarding Claim 3, Zimmerman teaches said formula of said non-adjusted fill time is derived from a curve-fit function (“These relationships can also be stated as formulas… and "curves" believed to be the best "fit" to the plotted values”, [0074]) of test data of said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Examiner interprets “2.9865 lbs salt/gal” as “solubility”, which is a salt-specific value.
Zimmerman teaches said formula of said non-adjusted fill time as a function of said actual salt dose requested is represented by the expression: Fill Time (seconds) = Salt Dose lbs/Solubility salt/gal /fill rate(gpm)
F = D/ (R x S), where F = fill time, D = dose in pounds of salt, R = fill rate in gallons per minute, and S = solubility of the salt in pounds per gallon [0045].
Conversions of minutes to seconds is simply a change of presentation of the same duration.
Regarding Claim 5, Zimmerman teaches said step of determining said multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time is derived from a curve-fit function (“These relationships can also be stated as formulas… and "curves" believed to be the best "fit" to the plotted values”, [0074]) of an empirically generated fill time curve against said non-adjusted fill time (“Further, the Water Adjustment Rate (WAR) for KCl, as set forth above, is determined from the data in Table
1 and Table 2. The WAR is based on the additional water needed to put equal amounts of KCl in solution, i.e., equal to the amount of NaCl which is desired if NaCl were to be used”, [0075]).
Regarding Claim 6, Zimmerman teaches said step of determining said multiplier factor (MF) for the non-adjusted fill time utilizing said empirically generated fill time curve where the MF is represented as a function of the salt dose requested (equal to the amount of NaCl which is desired if NaCl were to be used”, [0075]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-3146788-A teaches adding water to brine tank based on time adjusted as a function of the actual salt dose desired.
US-3351550-A teaches adjustments of flow rate and time periods for different steps of the process may be varied to provide the hardness desired.
US-5699272-A teaches software decides how much water should be put into the brine tank based on the entered number of pounds of salt, and draw duration is related to specific gravity in the brine tank.
US-6284132-B1 teaches the fill times should be adjusted on the basis of water temperature to reflect the temperature dependent solubility of the salt(s) used.
US-20110077144-A1 teaches determining fill time based upon desired dosage.
US-20210300785-A1 teaches a device and process can be used to monitor and adjust for water hardness and other factors affecting the holding capacity of the resin; and a softener's learning algorithm can be determined to modify the regeneration cycle and maintain and/or optimize the softener's capacity.
Smithsonian Mathematical Table, Brinemaster dial-a-brine Date Made 1962. https://www.si.edu/object/mathematical-table-brinemaster-dial-brine:nmah_904516 teaches a chemical properties of a solution, such as lbs NaCl per gal of brine, with a table indicating how to adjust readings when measurements are taken at temperatures other than 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
WaterRight Master Programming Manual 2018 teaches adjustable time between brine tank fill and start of backwash to allow the salt to dissolve and achieve proper brine strength, default 40 minutes.
IWS Elution study.2019 https://industrialh2osolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SOFTENER-ELUTION-STUDY-Graphic.jpg provides saturation curves and remedies for insufficient brine strength and contact time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
08/27/2026
Prosecution Insights