DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
Claims(s) 1-11, is/are filed on 12/18/2023 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20220177329 A1) in view of KR’ 126 (KR 102100126 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a water treatment system comprising: a first filter unit (11) and a second filter unit (12) configured to selectively perform any one of a removal mode ... and a regeneration mode ... [0009], [0048]-[0059], Figs. 1, 5, 7 (first filter unit 11 and second filter unit 12 selectively perform removal or "recycling" [regeneration] mode; ions adsorbed in removal, desorbed in regeneration with raw water flow producing reclaimed water); a first soft water discharge passage (31) and a second soft water discharge passage (32) configured to discharge the soft water ... and a source-of-demand passage (70), in which the first ... and the second ... are integrated; [0031], [0039], Fig. 1 (discharge passages 31, 32 merge into source-of-demand passage 70); a first regeneration water discharge passage (41) and a second regeneration water discharge passage (42) configured to discharge the regeneration water ...; [0063]-[0066], Fig. 1 (drainage passages 41, 42 for reclaimed/regeneration water); a first regeneration valve (410) and a second regeneration valve (420) disposed in the first ... and the second ..., and configured to adjust a discharge amount of the regeneration water [0065], [0013]-[0015], Figs. 4-5 (drainage valves 410, 420 adjust discharge via open/close/pulsing); a flow amount sensor (80) disposed in the source-of-demand passage (70) to measure a flow amount of the soft water ...; [0068], Fig. 1 (flow rate acquiring device 80 in 70 measures soft water flow); a flow amount sensor (80) disposed in the source-of-demand passage (70) to measure a flow amount of the soft water ...; [0068], Fig. 1 (flow rate acquiring device 80 in 70 measures soft water flow); a processor (100) electrically connected to the first filter unit (11), the second filter unit (12), the first regeneration valve (410), the second regeneration valve (420), and the flow amount sensor (80), [0069]-[0072], Fig. 2 (controller 100 connected to units, valves, sensor); a processor (100) electrically connected to the first filter unit (11), the second filter unit (12), the first regeneration valve (410), the second regeneration valve (420), and the flow amount sensor (80), [0069]-[0072], Fig. 2 (controller 100 connected to units, valves, sensor); wherein when it is assumed that the first filter unit performs the removal mode and the second filter unit performs the regeneration mode for a first time period [0073]-[0075], Figs. 5, 7 (units alternate; one removal, one regeneration for cycle period); the processor is configured to: perform a control to close the second regeneration valve to interrupt flow ... for a second time period being shorter than the first time period when a total amount ... is more than a reference value; and perform a control to close ... for a (2-1)-th time period ... and to open ... for a (2-2)-th time period ... when ... less than the reference value. Base pulsing/interruption is taught [0013]-[0015], [0083]-[0088], Fig. 6 (processor pulses second drainage valve 420 with close/open sections during regeneration; closes in sections "a" and "c" to interrupt, opens in "b" and "d" for burst discharge). Conditional adjustment on total soft water amount (integratable from flow sensor 80) not directly taught by LEE. KR’ 126 teaches adjusting regeneration parameters based on the amount treated in the immediately preceding purification cycle ( [0060]–[0080], quote: “the regenerative current value is set based on the purified current flowing… in the purified water mode immediately before the regenerative mode”). It would have been obvious to adjust the duration of valve closure (interruption) based on the previous treated volume, with motivation to optimize regeneration efficiency for the actual adsorbed ion load.
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches wherein the regeneration mode includes: a retrieval operation configured to apply an electric voltage ... to supply the ionic material to the raw water; and a static operation of not applying the electric voltage ... after the retrieval operation, and wherein the retrieval operation is performed for the second time period. [0084]-[0088], Fig. 6 (regeneration applies reverse voltage in sections "b", "c", "d" for desorption/retrieval; section "a" at 0V as initial static/no-voltage; pulsing aligns with "second time period" subsections).
Regarding claim 3, LEE does not teach the details as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have adjusted pulsing/static subsections based on prior volume per KR’ 126 for the maintaining balanced/efficient regeneration.
Regarding claim 9, LEE teaches wherein the first filter unit and the second filter unit alternately perform the removal mode and the regeneration mode every first time period [0073]- [0075].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 5-8, 10-11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777