DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on September 22, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 02 March 2026 has been entered; claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, and 15-20 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to toe the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) the rejections have been fully considered are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 of the Remarks, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to toe the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13-15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(2) the rejections have been fully considered are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Yata in view of Nakama, as necessitated by amendment and as set forth in detail below. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10 of the Remarks, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5-7, 12,16-17, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 and the rejections have been fully considered are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Nakama in view of Al-mayahi, and further view of Toma for Claim 2, 5-7, and 18-20. A new ground of rejection is made over Nakama, in view of Ragsdale for Claim 4. A new ground of rejection is made over Yata, in view of Nakama, in further view of Ragsdale for Claim 12. A new ground of rejection is made over Yata, in view of Nakama, in further view of Zawadzka for Claim 16-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 18 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. The claims state the phosphorus removing device is disposed between a rear end of the first filter and a front end of the ultraviolet ray irradiation device. The claims are unclear whether the flow follows the order of the first filter, phosphorus removing device, and ultraviolet ray irradiation; or if the arrangement of the first filter, phosphorus removing device, and ultraviolet ray irradiation is necessary with allowing for different flow configurations.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 18 are interpreted as the arrangement of the first filter, phosphorus removing device, and ultraviolet ray irradiation is necessary with allowing for different flow configurations.
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 –
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakama (WO 2020004272 A1) (appears on the PTO-892).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakama teaches a water treating device (water treatment system 1, Nakama, paragraph 11) for treating a circulating water (circulation channel 8, Nakama, paragraph 14), the water treating device (water treatment system 1, Nakama, paragraph 11) comprising: a storage tank (raw water tank 2, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to store the circulating water; a first filter (activated carbon device 3, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to filter the circulating water discharged by the storage tank (raw water tank 2, Nakama, paragraph 11); a phosphorus removing device (reverse osmosis filtration device 5, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to remove phosphorus contained in the circulating water; and an ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to irradiate an ultraviolet ray to the circulating water, and wherein the phosphorus removing device (reverse osmosis filtration device 5, Nakama, paragraph 11) is disposed between a rear end of the first filter (activated carbon device 3, Nakama, paragraph 11) and a front end of the ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11).
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aboud (US 20180327295 A1) (appears on the PTO-892).
Regarding Claim 1, Aboud discloses a water treating device (water treatment system 100, Aboud, Paragraph 24, Figure 1) for treating a circulating water; the water treating device comprising a storage tank (storage tank 105, Aboud, Paragraph 24, Figure 1) configured to store the circulating water; a first filter (strainer basket 120, Aboud, Paragraph 35, Figure 1) configured to filter the circulating water discharged by the storage tank; a phosphorus removing device (Nanofilters 190, Aboud, Paragraph 41, Figure 1) configured to remove phosphorus (pollutants which include phosphorus, Aboud, Paragraph 22) contained in the circulating water; an ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet light 165, Aboud, Paragraph 35, Figure 1) configured to irradiate an ultraviolet ray to the circulating water (Aboud, Paragraph 27, 33 -35, Figure 1) wherein the phosphorus removing device (Nanofilters 190, Aboud, Paragraph 41, Figure 1) is disposed between a rear end of the first filter (strainer basket 120, Aboud, Paragraph 35, Figure 1). Aboud further discloses the ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 8, Aboud teaches a second filter (bag filter 160, Aboud, Paragraph 41, Figure 1) downstream of the first filter (strainer basket 120, Aboud, Paragraph 41, Figure 1), wherein a pore diameter of the second filter ranges from about 0.1 μm to about 2 μm (Aboud, Paragraph 33, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Aboud teaches a phosphorus removing device (Nanofilters 190, Aboud, Paragraph 41, Figure 1) is downstream of the second filter (bag filter 160, Aboud, Paragraph 36, Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 and 5-7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of International Publication No. WO 2020004272 A1 ("Nakama"), in view of Al-mayahi, et al. U.S. Patent No.8221629 B2 ("Al-mayahi"), “Nanofiltration and electrodialysis: alternatives in heavy metal containing high salinity process water treatment.” Torma, et al ("Torma"), in further view of “Beneficial phosphate recovery from reverse osmosis concentrate of an integrated membrane system using polymeric ligand exchanger.” Kumar, et al ("Kumar"). The machine translation for Nakama is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 2, using the water treating device from Nakama outlined in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this office action to achieve the water treating device of claim 1. Nakama is silent on an electrodialysis device.
Al-mayahi is directed to an electrodialysis device (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52) where suitable membrane methods include reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, electrodialysis, reversal and ion exchange (Al-mayahi, Column 13, line 8-13, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the water treatment device of Nakama and add electrodialysis device of Al-mayahi because an electrodialysis device has higher demineralization rates for water treatment compared to nanofiltration (Torma, Abstract). Al-mayahi discloses that the water treatment system is operated to reduce the risk of fouling of the membrane (Al-mayahi, Column 3, line 53-56, Figure 3) which include anti-scaling agents, corrosion inhibitors, anti-fouling agents and disinfectants (Al-mayahi, Column 9, line 59-63). In addition, Kumar teaches that the reverse osmosis separation process that is used in Nakama and Al-mayahi provide excellent removal of phosphorus compounds (Kumar, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, using the water treating device from Nakama, Al-mayahi, and Torma, and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 21-24 of this office. The combination of references teaches a plurality of phosphorus removing devices (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52), where each of the plurality of phosphorus removing devices comprises electrodialysis device (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3).The combination of references further teaches the plurality of phosphorus removing devices comprise electrodialysis device (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the plurality of phosphorus removing devices (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3) is downstream of the first filter (membrane module 112, Al-mayahi, Column 20, line 66-67, and Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3). The combination of references discloses a plurality of electrodialysis devices are disposed at a front end (membrane module 110, Al-mayahi, Column 20, line 66-67, and Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3) of the first filter (membrane module 112, Al-mayahi, Column 20, line 66-67, and Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3), some others of the plurality of electrodialysis devices (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3)are downstream of the first filter (membrane module 112, Al-mayahi, Column 20, line 66-67, and Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3). Al-mayahi teaches that suitable membrane methods include electrodialysis and ion exchange (Al-mayahi, Column 13, line 8-13).
Regarding Claim 18, the water treating device from Nakama, Al-mayahi, and Torma outlined in paragraphs 20-23, and motivation to combine is discussed in this office action. The combination of references disclose a water treating device for treating circulating water, the water treating device (water treatment system 1, Nakama, paragraph 11) comprising: a storage tank (raw water tank 2, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to store a first circulating water; a supply tank configured to supply a supplementing water to the storage tank; a first filter (activated carbon device 3, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to filter the first circulating water and a second circulating water, where the second circulating water includes the supplementing water (raw water intake 1a, Nakama, paragraph 11); a phosphorus removing device (reverse osmosis filtration device 5, Nakama, paragraph 11), configured to remove phosphorus contained in the second circulating water; and an ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to irradiate an ultraviolet ray to the second circulating water, where the phosphorus removing device is an electrodialysis device (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 20, using the water treating device from Nakama, Al-mayahi, and Torma outlined in paragraph 26 of this office action to achieve the water treating device of claim 18. The combination of references discloses a plurality of electrodialysis devices (membrane module 130, 132, Al-mayahi, Column 21, line 51-52).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication No. WO 2020004272 A1 ("Nakama"), in view of “Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus.” Ragsdale, et al ("Ragsdale").
Regarding Claim 4, using the water treating device from Nakama outlined in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this office action to achieve the water treating device of claim 1. Nakama is silent on a reduced a concentration of the phosphorus contained in the circulating water to less than or equal to 2 μg/L.
Ragsdale teaches a phosphorus removing device is configured to reduce a concentration of the phosphorus contained in the circulating water equal to 2 μg/L (Ragsdale, Pg 17, Farmers Korner WWTP Performance Information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the water treatment device of Nakama and add phosphorus removing device is configured to reduce a concentration of the phosphorus contained in the circulating water equal to 2 μg/L of Ragsdale because filtration technologies of Ragsdale can improve the effectiveness of producing effluent containing low levels of phosphorus (Ragsdale, Pg 3, Abstract). Producing water with low levels of phosphorus is important because phosphorus can stimulate excess growth of algae, which leads to low dissolved oxygen levels, potential for harmful algal toxins, blockage of sunlight needed by organisms and plants in the water and degraded habitat conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life (Ragsdale, Pg 5, Nutrients and water quality problems).
Claims 10, 11, and 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of U.S. Patent No. 11306014 B2 ("Yata"), in view of Al-mayahi, et al. U.S. Patent No.8221629 B2 ("Al-mayahi"), “Nanofiltration and electrodialysis: alternatives in heavy metal containing high salinity process water treatment.” Torma, et al ("Torma"), “Beneficial phosphate recovery from reverse osmosis concentrate of an integrated membrane system using polymeric ligand exchanger.” Kumar, et al ("Kumar"), in further view of International Publication No. WO 2020004272 A1 ("Nakama"), The machine translation for Nakama is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 10, Yata teaches a wet cleaning device (Yuta, Column 7, line 55-56, Figure 1, Wash water processing apparatus 11) comprising: a spray device configured to spray (Yuta, Column 14, line 64-67, Figure 7, sprayed from a nozzle 84) a process water into air a removing device configured to drop the process water and a circulating water containing contaminants collected by the process water (Yata, Column 8, line 8-23, Figure 2). Yata further discloses a water treating device to supply the treated process water to the spray device
Yata does not teach a storage tank configured to store the circulating water; a first filter configured to filter the circulating water discharged by the storage tank; a phosphorus removing device configured to remove phosphorus contained in the circulating water; and an ultraviolet ray irradiation device configured to irradiate an ultraviolet ray to the circulating water.
Nakama teaches a storage tank (raw water tank 2, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to store the circulating water; a first filter (activated carbon device 3, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to filter the circulating water discharged by the storage tank (raw water tank 2, Nakama, paragraph 11); a phosphorus removing device (reverse osmosis filtration device 5, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to remove phosphorus contained in the circulating water; and an ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11) configured to irradiate an ultraviolet ray to the circulating water (Nakama, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the wet cleaning device of Yata and add a storage tank, first filter, phosphorus removing device, and ultraviolet ray irradiation device of Nakama because the limitations added by Nakama prevent shortages when the amount of treated water used increases (Nakama, paragraph 13), improves irradiation efficiency of ultraviolet light by reflecting the ultraviolet light emitted from the light source 73 (Nakama, paragraph 18), and removes most of the bacteria contained in the raw water, that is technically very difficult to completely reduce the number of bacteria (viable bacteria) in the treated water to zero (Nakama, paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 11, Yata teaches a wet cleaning device where the spray device comprises one or more nozzles (Yuta, Column 14, line 64-67, Figure 7, sprayed from a nozzle 84).
Regarding Claim 13, Yata teaches water treating device an ion exchange resin (ion exchange resin 52a, 52b) (Yata, Figure 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Yata teaches a plurality of ion exchange resin devices (ion exchange resin 52a, 52b) (Yata, Figure 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of U.S. Patent No. 11306014 B2 ("Yata"), in view of Al-mayahi, et al. U.S. Patent No.8221629 B2 ("Al-mayahi"), “Nanofiltration and electrodialysis: alternatives in heavy metal containing high salinity process water treatment.” Torma, et al ("Torma"), “Beneficial phosphate recovery from reverse osmosis concentrate of an integrated membrane system using polymeric ligand exchanger.” Kumar, et al ("Kumar"), in view of “Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus.” Ragsdale, et al ("Ragsdale").
Regarding Claim 12, paragraphs 32-34 in this office action discuss the motivation and combination of references to achieve the water treating device of claim 10. Yata teaches a water treating device; however, Yata does not teach a sensor configured to measure a concentration of the phosphorus.
Ragsdale discloses a water treating device further comprises a sensor (Ortho-P) configured to measure a concentration of the phosphorus contained in the circulating water (Ragsdale, Pg 23, Operational Considerations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the wet cleaning device of Yata, Al-mayahi, Torma, and Kumar, by adding a phosphorus sensor of Ragsdale because (Ragsdale, Pg 3, Abstract) the phosphorus sensor of Ragsdale allows for the water treating process to confirm that low levels of phosphorus are achieved. Producing water with low levels of phosphorus is important because phosphorus can stimulate excess growth of algae, which leads to low dissolved oxygen levels, potential for harmful algal toxins, blockage of sunlight needed by organisms and plants in the water and degraded habitat conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life (Ragsdale, Pg 5, Nutrients and water quality problems). In addition, other pollutants that commonly affect water quality such as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria are also significantly reduced through these advanced treatment processes (Ragsdale, Pg 3, Abstract). For freshwater systems, phosphorus is typically the nutrient that is in short supply relative to biological needs, which means that the productivity of aquatic plans and algae can be controlled by limiting the amount of phosphorus entering the water (Ragsdale, Pg 5, Nutrients and water quality problems).
Claims 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of U.S. Patent No. 11306014 B2 ("Yata"), in view of Al-mayahi, et al. U.S. Patent No.8221629 B2 ("Al-mayahi"), “Nanofiltration and electrodialysis: alternatives in heavy metal containing high salinity process water treatment.” Torma, et al ("Torma"), “Beneficial phosphate recovery from reverse osmosis concentrate of an integrated membrane system using polymeric ligand exchanger.” Kumar, et al ("Kumar"), in view of Aboud, et al., U.S. Patent No.2018/0327295 A1 ("Aboud"), and further view of “Meandering Flow Filter for Phosphorus Removal as a Component of Small Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Case Study.” Zawadzka, et al ("Zawadzka").
Regarding Claim 16, paragraphs 32-34 in this office action discuss the motivation and combination of references to achieve the water treating device of claim 10. The combination of references teaches a wet cleaning device. The combination of references does not teach a second filter downstream of the first filter, and wherein a pore diameter of the second filter ranges from about 0.1 μm to about 2 μm and phosphorus removing device is downstream of the second filter.
Aboud does teach a second filter (bag filters 160, Aboud, paragraph 33) downstream of the first filter (strainer basket 120, Aboud, paragraph 27), and wherein a pore diameter of the second filter (bag filters 160, Aboud, paragraph 33) ranges from about 0.1 μm to about 2 μm (Aboud, Paragraph 33-35, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the wet cleaning device of Yata and add the water treatment device of Aboud because Zawadzka discloses that using multiple filters can increase the phosphorus removal efficiency in small wastewater treatment plants (Zawadzka, Abstract). The water treatment system of Aboud can remove inorganic and organic pollutants from the wastewater (Aboud, Abstract). Yata discloses that the wet treating device can effectively decomposing organic matters and killing bacteria contained in wash water, extending the life of a filter of a filtration apparatus and an ion-exchange resin and, furthermore, extending a bacteria-killing/washing interval of a washing processing part (Yata, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, paragraphs 42-45 in this office action discuss the motivation and combination of references to achieve the water treating device of claim 16. The combination of references teaches a wet cleaning device that has a phosphorus removing device (nanofilters 190, Aboud, paragraph 41) downstream of the second filter (bag filters 160, Aboud, paragraph 33).
Regarding Claim 19, paragraph 26 of this office action and the motivation to combine the references to achieve the invention of claim 18. The combination of references discloses a second filter (water softener 4, Nakama, paragraph 11) disposed between a rear end of the first filter (activated carbon device 3, Nakama, paragraph 11) a front end of the ultraviolet ray irradiation device (ultraviolet irradiation device 7, Nakama, paragraph 11) where a pore diameter of the second filter ranges from about 0.1 μm to about 2 μm (Aboud, Paragraph 27 and 35, Figure 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights