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 the applicant's priority to the Japanese application No. JP2023081881.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 and 10/09/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “timing adjustment unit”, but does claim to be adjusting the timing of the stream reaching the dissolved oxygen measuring unit; rather, it claims adjusting the amount of dissolved oxygen within each stream. Given the entirety of the specification, it is believed the applicant meant to claim “the timing adjustment unit that adjusts when the amount of dissolved … to be compared …”, and will be interpreted, but not limited to, as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kin (JP2002214221A), in view of Morino (US20210033581A1). *Note all mappings and teachings of Kin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
In regards to claim 1, Kin teaches a measurement device comprising: an ultraviolet irradiation unit capable of taking in part of water to be treated from a main flow path and irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; {P 4 top, "includes an ultraviolet treatment device", F1 R(11)} a main dissolved oxygen measurement unit that measures an amount of dissolved oxygen {P 4 top, "dissolved oxygen meter", F1 R (13)} after irradiation in the water to be treated, after irradiation with ultraviolet rays from the ultraviolet irradiation unit. {F 1, R's (11 and 13) & P 3 middle, "means for measuring the dissolved oxygen of the ultraviolet-irradiated water."}
Kin does not teach:
Claim 1: A sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit that takes in part of the water to be treated from the main flow path and measures an amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated; a dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit that compares the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation with the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen; a timing adjustment unit that adjusts the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen to be compared in the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit so as to be in the water to be treated flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing; and an output unit that outputs a comparison result from the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit.
Claim 2: The measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the timing adjustment unit includes an adjustment chamber that equalizes a time until the water to be treated reaches the main dissolved oxygen measurement unit from a branch portion that branches from the main flow path, with a time until the water to be treated reaches the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit from the branch portion.
However, Morino teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, that Kin does not teach.
In regards to claim 1, Morino teaches a sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit that takes in part of the water to be treated from the main flow path {P 2, ¶ 15, "first dissolved oxygen concentration measuring means"} and measures an amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated; {P 2, ¶ 15, " measuring a concentration of the dissolved oxygen in the sample water by the first dissolved oxygen concentration measuring means"} a dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit that compares the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation with the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen; {P 1, ¶ 14, "obtaining a corrected value that is a difference between two dissolved oxygen concentration values"} a timing adjustment unit that adjusts the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen to be compared in the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit {P 3, ¶ 41, "valve controlling device … including the timing of opening and closing"} so as to be in the water to be treated flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing; {P 10, ¶ 111, "the sample water was simultaneously passed through both the first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and the second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13"} and an output unit that outputs a comparison result from the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit. {P 3, ¶ 41, "A display device for display the measured dissolved oxygen concentration value … on a monitor screen"}
In regards to claim 2, Morino teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the timing adjustment unit includes an adjustment chamber that equalizes a time until the water to be treated reaches the main dissolved oxygen measurement unit from a branch portion that branches from the main flow path, with a time until the water to be treated reaches the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit from the branch portion. {F 1 R's (31, 32, and 36) & P 2, ¶ 38, "first pipe line 32 … and a pipe line 36"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Morino with the invention of Kin because both inventions appear within the same field of endeavor for water ultrafiltration systems. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Morino to Kin because the ion exchange membranes of Morino have physical properties that improve the durability of the surface, regarding the physical and chemical properties. {Morino, P 5, ¶ 56, “the physical properties … so that the durability against swelling and shrinkage is improved.”}
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kin (JP2002214221A) and Morino (US20210033581A1), in view of Osawa (JP3235107B2). *Note all mappings and teachings of Kin and Osawa are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Kin and Morino teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as mentioned in the prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 3, Morino further teaches a branch portion that branches from the main flow path. {F 1, R's (12-13 and 31)}
In regards to claim 4, Morino further teaches a branch portion that branches from the main flow path. {F 1, R's (12-13 and 31)}
In regards to claim 5, Kin further teaches A measurement method comprising: irradiating water to be treated taken in from a main flow path with ultraviolet rays, {F 1, R's (2 and 11) & P 4 top, "includes an ultraviolet treatment device"} and then measuring an amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation in the water to be treated. {P 3 middle, "means for measuring the dissolved oxygen of the ultraviolet-irradiated water."} Morino further teaches measuring an amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated taken in from the main flow path without irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; {P 2, ¶ 15, "first dissolved oxygen concentration measuring means" & F 1, R's (31-32)} and comparing the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non- irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated {P 1, ¶ 14, "obtaining a corrected value that is a difference between two dissolved oxygen concentration values"} flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing. {P 10, ¶ 111, "the sample water was simultaneously passed through both the first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and the second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13"}
In regards to claim 6, Kin further teaches a water treatment method comprising: irradiating water to be treated taken in from a main flow path with ultraviolet rays, {F 1, R's (2 and 11) & P 4 top, "includes an ultraviolet treatment device"} and then measuring an amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation in the water to be treated. {P 3 middle, "means for measuring the dissolved oxygen of the ultraviolet-irradiated water."} Morino further teaches measuring an amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated taken in from the main flow path without irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; {P 2, ¶ 15, "first dissolved oxygen concentration measuring means" & F 1, R's (31-32)} and comparing the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non- irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated {P 1, ¶ 14, "obtaining a corrected value that is a difference between two dissolved oxygen concentration values"} flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing; {P 10, ¶ 111, "the sample water was simultaneously passed through both the first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and the second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13"} a branch portion from the main flow path {Morino: F 1, R's (12-13 and 31)}, and that the oxidizing/reducing agent addition [taught by Osawa, not Morino] is based on a comparison result. {P 1, ¶ 14, "obtaining a corrected value that is a difference between two dissolved oxygen concentration values"}
The combination of Kin and Morino do not teach:
Claim 3: A water treatment device comprising: the measurement device according to claim 1; a reducing agent addition unit that is provided on an upstream side with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino] and adds a reducing agent to the water to be treated; and a reducing agent amount adjustment unit that adjusts an amount of the reducing agent to be added by the reducing agent addition unit based on the comparison result output from the output unit.
Claim 4: The water treatment device according to claim 3, further comprising: an oxidizing agent addition unit that is provided on the upstream side with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino] and adds an oxidizing agent to the water to be treated; and an oxidizing agent amount adjustment unit that adjusts an amount of the oxidizing agent to be added by the oxidizing agent addition unit based on the comparison result output from the output unit.
Claim 5: Measuring an amount of at least one of an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent in the water to be treated flowing through the main flow path based on a comparison result.
Claim 6: Adjusting an amount of at least one of an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent to be added to the water to be treated of the main flow path upstream with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino].
However, Osawa teaches all of the limitations of claims 3-6 that the combination of Kin and Morino do not teach.
In regards to claim 3, Osawa teaches a water treatment device comprising: the measurement device according to claim 1; a reducing agent addition unit {P 7 middle, "the drainage and the treating agent are sucked and introduced into the reaction tube by a pump"} that is provided on an upstream side with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino] {P 7 middle, "The reaction state between the waste water and the treatment agent is detected by a sensor downstream from the installation process [agent addition point]"} and adds a reducing agent to the water to be treated; {P 4 bottom, "treatment agents such as … a reducing agent for the treatment reaction may be injected into the reaction tube"} and a reducing agent amount adjustment unit that adjusts an amount of the reducing agent to be added by the reducing agent addition unit based on the comparison result output from the output unit. {P 7 middle, "a control mechanism operates one of the pair of solenoids of the liquid adjustment valve … the injection amount of the processing agent is adjusted accurately and automatically"}
In regards to claim 4, Osawa teaches the water treatment device according to claim 3, further comprising: an oxidizing agent addition unit {P 7 middle, "the drainage and the treating agent are sucked and introduced into the reaction tube by a pump"} that is provided on the upstream side with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino] {P 7 middle, "The reaction state between the waste water and the treatment agent is detected by a sensor downstream from the installation process [agent addition point]"} and adds an oxidizing agent to the water to be treated; {P 4 bottom, "treatment agents such as … an oxidizing agent for the treatment reaction may be injected into the reaction tube"} and an oxidizing agent amount adjustment unit that adjusts an amount of the oxidizing agent to be added by the oxidizing agent addition unit based on the comparison result output from the output unit. {P 7 middle, "the control mechanism operates one of the pair of solenoids of the liquid adjustment valve … the injection amount of the processing agent is adjusted accurately and automatically"}
In regards to claim 5, Osawa teaches measuring an amount of at least one of an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent in the water to be treated flowing through the main flow path based on a comparison result. {P 7 middle, "The reaction state … is detected by a sensor … the control mechanism operates one of the pair of solenoids of the liquid adjustment valve, … whereby the injection amount of the processing agent [oxidizer, reducer, etc.] is adjusted accurately and automatically"}
In regards to claim 6, Osawa teaches adjusting an amount of at least one of an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent to be added to the water to be treated of the main flow path {P 7 middle, "The reaction state … is detected by a sensor … the control mechanism operates one of the pair of solenoids of the liquid adjustment valve, … whereby the injection amount of the processing agent [oxidizer, reducer, etc.] is adjusted accurately and automatically"} upstream with respect to [the branch portion that is taught by Morino]. {P 7 middle, "The reaction state between the waste water and the treatment agent is detected by a sensor downstream from the installation process [agent addition point]"}
For clarity of the record regarding the limitation of the oxidation/reduction addition points upstream of the branch portion: Morino teaches a branch portion off of a main line, with sensors downstream of the branch portion; and Osawa teaches that the chemical addition point is upstream of the sensors used to measure the impact of the chemical addition on the flow. Given that Osawa teaches chemical addition to the entire flow, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the chemical addition units of Osawa before the branch split of Morino in order to treat the entirety of the flow within the Morino system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Osawa to the combined invention of Kin and Morino because the invention of Osawa exists within the same water treatment field of invention of Kin and Morino. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Osawa to Kin and Morino because the stirring and closed pipe structure of Osawa that helps oxidize/reduce the waste stream, can stop harmful gases and odors, that are generated from treatment, escape the system and create hazards. {Osawa, P 1 bottom, “By using a stirrer to … the problem of gas and odor generated … does not occur.”}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779