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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/525,710, filed on 10MAY2017.
Claim Interpretation
It should be noted that the inventions of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are considered to be obvious variants as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that conductivity cells (as measuring the amount of ions) and flow meters (as measuring the amount of flow) are measurement devices known in the art to be useful for regulating reverse osmosis systems.
Claim 1 line(s) 4-5 sets forth the limitation “the pressure” has antecedent basis, because a water purification feed inherently has a pressure.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 line(s) 25-26, 32-33 sets forth the limitation “(ion concentration)”. Only reference characters should be in parentheses and the limitation is to be read with the rest of the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line(s) 28 sets forth the limitation “the first and second flow meters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAIGNET (US 7407585) in view of MICHELBACH (WO 2004054691) and AQUA SOLUTIONS “Type II Laboratory Water Purification Systems”.
Regarding claim 1, GAIGNET teaches a water purification system and methods, and module for the system (title, Figs.) including a method of purifying using a water purification system (abstract) which comprises:
a feed medium flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #13,15) including a pump (Fig. 1 #13) for elevating the pressure of the feed medium (that’s what pumps are for) and supplying the feed medium under pressure to a feed inlet of a reverse-osmosis device (Fig. 1 #11), wherein the reverse-osmosis device is adapted to produce a permeate flow (see arrow at Fig. 1 #22) and a concentrate flow (see arrow at Fig. 1 #16) from the feed medium and has a permeate outlet (where permeate flows out of the RO unit) and a retentate outlet (where concentrate flows out of the RO unit);
an electro-deionization device (Fig. 1 #12) having an inlet in fluid communication with the permeate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1), and a purified water outlet (deionized water outlet; Fig. 1 #23; C4/L63-64);
a first retentate flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #20) in fluid communication with the retentate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1), for removing retentate from the system, said first retentate flow path including a first flow rate regulator (Fig. 1 #19) adapted to be remote controlled (C2/L53-57); and
a second retentate flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #17) in fluid communication with the retentate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1) for recirculating retentate to the feed medium flow path at an upstream position of the pump (see Fig. 1), said second retentate flow path including a second flow rate regulator (Fig. 1 #21;C4/L36-37; C2/L46-50) adapted to be remote controlled;
wherein said method comprises:
detecting the permeate flow rate produced by the reverse-osmosis device downstream of the permeate outlet (valve Fig. 1 #22 coupled with a turbine flowmeter; C4/L58; C6/L62-67); and
remote controlling (via automatic controller not shown; C2/L48-50; C4/L47-48) the first and second flow rate regulators based on the detection results from the first flow meter such that a predetermined target recovery rate (C2/L9-11) and a predetermined target permeate flow rate (C2/L41-42) are controlled for the reverse-osmosis device (C2/L48-50,53-55; C4/L47-53; C6/L62-67).
GAIGNET does not teach detecting the flow rate of the retentate flow that is removed from the system downstream of the first flow rate regulator. However, MICHELBACH teaches a reverse osmosis system (title, Figs. see translation) comprising:
RO modules (Fig. 2 #22,23),
a first flow meter (not shown; P3/fourth full paragraph) downstream of the permeate outlet (Fig. 2 #25) for detecting the permeate flow rate produced by the reverse-osmosis device; and,
a second flow meter (Fig. 2 #35) provided in the first retentate flow path downstream of a first flow rate regulator (Fig. 2 #38) for detecting the flow rate of the retentate flow that is removed from the system; and,
an automatic controller (Fig. 2 #36) for remote controlling the flow rate regulators based on the detection results from the first and second flow meters for a predetermined target recovery rate and a predetermined target permeate flow rate (or permeate yield; P3/third full paragraph and last paragraph-P4/first full paragraph; P8/first full paragraph-second full paragraph).
MICHELBACH’s method of RO system control improves recovery or yield, permeate amount and salt content, and overall flexibility in control (P3/ third full paragraph, last full paragraph).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the method of GAIGNET with the control method including detecting the flow rate of the retentate flow of MICHELBACH in order to improve recovery or yield, permeate amount and salt content, and overall flexibility in control. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water purification. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding the preamble, GAIGNET teaches deionized water (C4/L63-64), but does not specify the details. However, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that such a method is suitable for purifying tap water to produce deionized type 2 pure water on a laboratory scale with a volume of up to 300 L/h (see Type II Point of use Laboratory Water Purification Systems and methods for purifying e.g. 5-12 LPM or 300-720 L/h of tap water).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the method of GAIGNET for purifying tap water to produce deionized type 2 pure water on a laboratory scale as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water purification. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAIGNET (US 7407585) in view of JANK (WO 2006128730) and AQUA SOLUTIONS “Type II Laboratory Water Purification Systems”.
Regarding claim 2, GAIGNET teaches a water purification system and methods, and module for the system (title, Figs.) including a method of purifying water using a water purification system which comprises:
a feed medium flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #13,14,15) including a pump (Fig. 1 #13) for elevating the pressure of the feed medium (that’s what pumps are for) and supplying the feed medium under pressure to a feed inlet of a reverse-osmosis device (Fig. 1 #11), wherein the reverse-osmosis device is adapted to produce a permeate flow (see arrow at Fig. 1 #22) and a concentrate flow (see arrow at Fig. 1 #16) from the feed medium and has a permeate outlet (where permeate flows out of the RO unit) and a retentate outlet (where concentrate flows out of the RO unit);
an electro-deionization device (Fig. 1 #12) having an inlet in fluid communication with the permeate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1), and a purified water outlet (deionized water outlet; Fig. 1 #23; C4/L63-64);
a first retentate flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #20) in fluid communication with the retentate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1), for removing retentate from the system, said first retentate flow path including a first flow rate regulator (Fig. 1 #19) adapted to be remote controlled (C2/L53-57); and
a second retentate flow path (see arrow at Fig. 1 #17) in fluid communication with the retentate outlet of the reverse-osmosis device (see Fig. 1) for recirculating retentate to the feed medium flow path at an upstream position of the pump (see Fig. 1), said second retentate flow path (B) including a second flow rate regulator (Fig. 1 #21;C4/L36-37; C2/L46-50) adapted to be remote controlled;
wherein said method comprises:
detecting the permeate flow rate produced by the reverse-osmosis device downstream of the permeate outlet (valve Fig. 1 #22 coupled with a turbine flowmeter; C4/L58; C6/L62-67); and,
controlling the first and second flow rate regulators based on the permeate flow rate produced by the reverse-osmosis device such that a predetermined target recovery rate (C2/L9-11) and a predetermined target permeate flow rate (C2/L41-42) are controlled for the reverse-osmosis device (C2/L48-50,53-55; C4/L47-53; C6/L62-67).
GAIGNET’s purpose is controlling and optimizing the recovery rate (C2/L32-36). GAIGNET does not teach conductivity cells. However, JANK teaches an improved process for treating an aqueous medium using reverse osmosis and reverse osmosis system therefor (title, Figs) comprising:
RO modules (Fig. 1 #7,8);
detecting the permeate flow rate produced by the reverse-osmosis devices downstream of the permeate outlet (via a first flow meter; Fig. 1 #Vp; P19/L16-18);
detecting the conductivity or ion concentration of the retentate flow via a first conductivity cell (Fig. 1 #LFk; P20/L2-4) as well as the permeate flow (see e.g. Fig. 1 #LFp); and,
detecting the conductivity or ion concentration of the feed medium flow via a second conductivity cell (either implied or made obvious: “changes in the concentration of these fine particles of scale forming compounds in the retentate can: readily be monitored, e.g. by recording changes in the conductivity or turbidity of the retentate associated with said change. Furthermore, under given process conditions the number and size of the particles of scale forming compounds which appear in the retentate […] substantially depends on the composition of the feed water”; P5/L20-23); and,
an automatic controller (P15/L15-17; Fig. 1 #13; P20/L5-8).
JANK teaches the purpose of the controller is to control the amount of antiscaling agent to add to the system to control scaling (P3/L21-23; P4/L25-31). However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the recovery rate and permeate flow rate in GAIGNET’s method in combination with JANK’s teaching of using conductivity cells for process control. It is a simple matter of mass balance of flow and dissolved species, which is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. For example, if the feed composition has a high ion concentration (as measured via a conductivity meter in the feed), the amount of concentrate leading to the drain would have to increase in order to maintain an acceptable ion concentration in the RO system. If the amount leading to the drain is unacceptable (i.e. a low recovery rate), then the system would have to increase the flow rate of the permeate to compensate for the higher recycled concentrate.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the method of GAIGNET with the control method including detecting the conductivity in the feed and retentate of JANK in order to improve process control for recovery rate and permeate flow rate. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water purification. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding the preamble, GAIGNET teaches deionized water (C4/L63-64), but does not specify the details. However, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that such a method is suitable for purifying tap water to produce deionized type 2 pure water on a laboratory scale with a volume of up to 300 L/h (see Type II Point of use Laboratory Water Purification Systems and methods for purifying e.g. 5-12 LPM or 300-720 L/h of tap water).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/specify the method of GAIGNET for purifying tap water to produce deionized type 2 pure water on a laboratory scale as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water purification. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DING (US 8858792) discloses “tap water purified through standard means such as deionization and/or reverse osmosis” at C4/L23-26.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777