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 Amendment
The examiner acknowledges and enters the following amendments set forth in the remarks submitted by the applicant on 04/15/26:
Claim 1 and 3-4 amendments
Claim 2 cancellation
Claims 7-11 addition
In regards to the clarity amendments to claim 1, the 112(b)-indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the applicant’s argument of Morino failing to teach the timing adjustment unit as claimed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (normal filtration of instant application vs calibration of Morino) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Paragraphs 80, 81, and 87 of Morino go into further detail regarding “simultaneous passage”, wherein there are flow stabilizing devices, and that the simultaneous passage, is not simply the same pressure, that which the applicant argued. In addition, paragraph 10 of Morino states, “while simultaneously measuring the dissolved oxygen concentrations of the sample water and the treated water” which further supports the flow of the fluid being equal through each branch of the flow path. Applicant's argument have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the timing adjustment chamber (amended portion of claim 1, taken from claim 2) is not present in Morino, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., chambers holding the same volume, same diameter and length pipes, etc.…) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), nor are these features recited in the amended claim 1, however they are recited in the newly added claims 7-8; in which this argument is not directed towards. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With what has been written in the amended claims, the examiner believes the path of the branching, along with the valves, and the flow stabilizing devices, are capable of reading on all the limitations of the claimed adjustment chamber, and thus for the reasons set forth above, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the incorrect motivation for combination of Morino to Kin, as well as the lack of UV in Morino, the applicant believes that the invention of Kin is solely an irradiation system, and that Morino is directed more towards measuring the concentration of hydrogen peroxide. The examiner disputes these arguments as both reference appear to have many similar functions, that overlap with one another, making the obviousness combination possible. For example, Morino sates, that hydrogen peroxide is generated in ultraviolet irradiation equipment, and ultrapure water facilities, while also utilizing DO meters in their own invention. Kin similarly discloses peroxide measurements as a function, while also utilizing DO meters. Given these inventions have overlapping scope and features, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find in obvious to combine, and for the reasons set forth, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of the remaining dependent claims 3-6, wherein they discuss that Osawa does not “cure the deficiency” between what the applicant stated as an improper combination of Kin and Morino, given the responses set forth above regarding the combination of Kin and Morino, the examiner does not find the combination to be improper between those two references. As for Osawa, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive as chemical addition in water treatment systems is a common function of water treatment systems. Given both of these inventions are water treatment/purification systems that change the oxidation and the reduction states of the water within the systems, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this combination.
The examiner would like to note, due to the amendments of the independent claim 1, the scope of claim 1 and all of its dependent claims have changed. Because of this, the 103 rejections for original claims 1-4 of the non-final rejection are withdrawn. The newly amended and added claims will be examined on their full merits. However, if the examiner continues to believe the features of the prior art mapped to in the first rejection, best fit the scope of the amended claims, then the features may be mapped to the same locations of those initial references.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (US20210033581A1), in view of Sakamoto (JP2001225066A). *Note all mappings from Sakamoto are based in the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Morino discloses a measurement device; {[0028] re. measurement system} capable of taking in part of water to be treated from a main flow path; {[0038] re. branching of sample water and Figure 2} a main dissolved oxygen measurement unit that measures an amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation in the water to be treated, after irradiation with ultraviolet rays from the ultraviolet irradiation unit; {[0040] re. second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13 and Figure 2} 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; {[0038] re. first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and Figure 2} a dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit that compares the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation with the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen; {[0025] re. calculation means} a timing adjustment unit that adjusts a timing at which the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non-irradiated dissolved oxygen are to be compared in the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit {[0041] re. valve control device} so as to be amounts measured in the water to be treated flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing, {[0111] re. simultaneous passage} the timing adjustment unit including 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 {[0072] re. condition adjustment unit 20 and the ability to equalize flow conditions} and an output unit that outputs a comparison result from the dissolved oxygen amount comparison unit. (Claim 1) {[0041] re. display device}
Morino fails to disclose that the measurement device comprises an ultraviolet irradiation unit; and irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays. (Claim 1) Morino fails to disclose wherein the ultraviolet irradiation unit irradiates the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of about 254 nm. (Claim 11)
Sakamoto discloses the measurement device comprises an ultraviolet irradiation unit; {Top page 2 re. ultraviolet irradiation device} and irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays. (Claim 1) {Middle page 2 re. ultraviolet light B decomposing hydrogen peroxide} Sakamoto discloses wherein the ultraviolet irradiation unit irradiates the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of about 254 nm. (Claim 11) {Middle page 3 re. 254nm wavelength}
Sakamoto teaches that ultraviolet light is capable of both generating and decomposing hydrogen peroxide in water treatment depending on the wavelength being used to treat the stream. {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} With these teachings, it becomes evident why Morino discloses hydrogen peroxide is generated using ultraviolet irradiation equipment {Morino, [0002]}, as it is dependent on the wavelength of light. However, when UV irradiation equipment is used with a wavelength between 200-400nm, it will decompose hydrogen peroxide; {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} and adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino, would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino with Sakamoto’s teachings to include, in addition to the hydrogen peroxide decomposition means of Morino, an ultraviolet irradiation unit; and irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; (Claim 1) and wherein the ultraviolet irradiation unit irradiates the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of about 254 nm (Claim 11) as both inventions are water treatment devices with a common goal of removing hydrogen peroxide from a water stream, and since adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment .
Regarding claim 7, Morino modified by Sakamoto is silent to a flow path from the branch portion to a main chamber of the ultraviolet irradiation unit and a flow path from the branch portion to the adjustment chamber have a same diameter and a same length. However, [0087] of Morino discloses the importance of the simultaneous passage of water to both of the dissolved oxygen analyzers, and the end of both the irradiated and non-irradiated flow paths.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Morino wherein a flow path from the branch portion to a main chamber of the ultraviolet irradiation unit and a flow path from the branch portion to the adjustment chamber have a same diameter and a same length as Morino discloses a goal of simultaneous passage of fluid in the from the branch portion through to the dissolved oxygen analyzers, {[0087]} and having the same diameter pipes and flow path lengths would contribute to the goal of equal and simultaneous flow.
Regarding claim 8, Morino modified by Sakamoto is silent to the adjustment chamber and a main chamber of the ultraviolet irradiation unit are configured to store a same volume of the water to be treated. However, [0087] of Morino discloses the importance of the simultaneous passage of water to both of the dissolved oxygen analyzers.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Morino wherein the adjustment chamber and a main chamber of the ultraviolet irradiation unit are configured to store a same volume of the water to be treated, as this chambers with equal volumes, will have equal retention times, as long as the flow rate of the water streams are also the same, which would contribute to the goal of equal and simultaneous passage of water throughout the system.
Regarding claim 9, Morino discloses a degassing membrane {[0102] re. degassing device 21} provided between the branch portion and a hydrogen peroxide decomposition means and the adjustment chamber, {[0102] re. degassing membrane provided in pipe line 31} the degassing membrane adjusting an amount of dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated to a predetermined amount. {[0103] re. variable parameters of deoxidation}
While Morino is silent to the ultraviolet irradiation unit, Morino modified by Sakamoto teaches the ultraviolet irradiation unit to be adjacent to the hydrogen peroxide decomposition means, due to the increased decomposition efficiency of two types of hydrogen peroxide treatments. Thus, the location of the claimed degassing membrane would fall between the ultraviolet irradiation unit, the adjustment chamber, and the branch portion of Morino modified by Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 10, Morino discloses a sub-ultraviolet irradiation unit wherein the sub-ultraviolet irradiation unit is provided on an upstream side of the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit. {[0002] re. ultraviolet irradiation equipment from ultrapure water production facilities} Note that given Morino discloses the influent to their device can be from an ultrapure water production facility containing ultraviolet irradiation equipment, it implicitly discloses that this UV irradiation equipment is upstream of their treatment device.
Morino fails to disclose the sub-ultraviolet irradiation unit being capable of irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays for calibration of the main dissolved oxygen measurement unit and the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit.
Sakamoto teaches the sub-ultraviolet irradiation unit being capable of irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays for calibration of the main dissolved oxygen measurement unit and the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit. {Middle page 2 re. ultraviolet light B decomposing hydrogen peroxide}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino’s influent UV irradiation equipment with the sub-ultraviolet irradiation unit being capable of irradiating the water to be treated with ultraviolet rays for calibration of the main dissolved oxygen measurement unit and the sub-dissolved oxygen measurement unit of Sakamoto as these inventions both treat water utilizing ultraviolet light. As calibration of measuring equipment is well known through the art, adding the ultraviolet irradiation unit of Sakamoto would greatly increase the accuracy of the measuring of the system, ensuring both UV irradiation devices and dissolved oxygen analyzers are calibrated to one another. Doing so would also decrease the cost and footprint of the system, as being able to utilize an upstream treatment device for another function, will save the user from needed to create a new stream or device to accomplish this calibration function.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (US20210033581A1) and Sakamoto (JP2001225066A), in view of Osawa (JP3235107B2). *Note all mappings from Sakamoto and Osawa are based on the attached, English, machine-translated versions.
Regarding claims 3-4, Morino modified by Sakamoto fails to teach a reducing agent addition unit that is provided on an upstream side with respect to the branch portion 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 3) Morino modified by Sakamoto fails to teach an oxidizing agent addition unit that is provided on the upstream side with respect the branch portion 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 4)
Osawa teaches a reducing agent addition unit {Middle page 7 re. treating agents added by a pump} that is provided on an upstream side with respect to the branch portion {Middle page 7 re. sensor is downstream of the agent addition point} and adds a reducing agent to the water to be treated; {Bottom page 4 re. reducing agent} 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 3) {Middle page 7 re. control mechanism} Morino modified by Sakamoto fails to teach an oxidizing agent addition unit {Middle page 7 re. treating agents added by a pump} that is provided on the upstream side with respect the branch portion {Middle page 7 re. sensor is downstream of the agent addition point} and adds an oxidizing agent to the water to be treated; {Bottom page 4 re. oxidizing agent} 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 4) {Middle page 7 re. control mechanism}
The examiner would like to note, the pump that adds the treating agents is taught to be capable of dispensing a plurality of agents, {Osawa, Bottom page 4 re. a plurality of treatment agent injection tubes} such that the tube in which the reducing or oxidizing agent is dispensed from, can be considered the reduction or oxidizing agent addition unit.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino modified by Sakamoto with Osawa’s teachings of a reducing agent addition unit that is provided on an upstream side with respect to the branch portion 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 3) and an oxidizing agent addition unit that is provided on the upstream side with respect the branch portion 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 4) as both Morino modified by Sakamoto and Osawa disclose inventions pertaining to water treatment systems. Doing so would increase the control over the parameters that pertain to the efficiency of treatment the treatment of fluid through an automatic feedback system of the sensors to the chemical agent injection devices. {Osawa, Middle page 7}
Regarding claim 5, Morino discloses a measurement method {[0001] re. method for measuring} comprising: water taken in from a main flow path, {[0038] re. branching of sample water and Figure 2} and then measuring an amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation in the water to be treated; {[0040] re. second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13 and Figure 2} 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; {[0038] re. first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and Figure 2} and comparing the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non- irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated {[0025] re. calculation means} flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing. {[0111] re. simultaneous passage}
Morino fails to disclose irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; and 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.
Sakamoto teaches irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays. {Middle page 2 re. ultraviolet light B decomposing hydrogen peroxide}
Sakamoto teaches that ultraviolet light is capable of both generating and decomposing hydrogen peroxide in water treatment depending on the wavelength being used to treat the stream. {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} With these teachings, it becomes evident why Morino discloses hydrogen peroxide is generated using ultraviolet irradiation equipment {Morino, [0002]}, as it is dependent on the wavelength of light. However, when UV irradiation equipment is used with a wavelength between 200-400nm, it will decompose hydrogen peroxide; {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} and adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino, would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino with Sakamoto’s teachings of irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays as both inventions are water treatment devices with a common goal of removing hydrogen peroxide from a water stream, and adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino, would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment.
Morino modified by Sakamoto fails to teach 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.
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. {Middle page 7 re. sensor and control mechanism}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino modified by Sakamoto with Osawa’s teachings of 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 as both Morino modified by Sakamoto and Osawa disclose inventions pertaining to water treatment systems. Doing so would increase the control over the parameters that pertain to the efficiency of treatment the treatment of fluid through an automatic feedback system of the sensors to the chemical agent injection devices. {Osawa, Middle page 7}
Regarding claim 6, Morino discloses a water treatment method {[0017] re. water treatment process} comprising: water taken in from a main flow path {[0038] re. branching of sample water and Figure 2} and then measuring an amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation in the water to be treated; {[0040] re. second dissolved oxygen analyzer 13 and Figure 2} 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; {[0038] re. first dissolved oxygen analyzer 12 and Figure 2} and comparing the amount of dissolved oxygen after irradiation and the amount of non- irradiated dissolved oxygen in the water to be treated {[0025] re. calculation means} flowing through a same position of the main flow path at a same timing. {[0111] re. simultaneous passage}
Morino fails to disclose irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays; and 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 a branch portion from the main flow path based on a comparison result.
Sakamoto teaches disclose irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays. {Middle page 2 re. ultraviolet light B decomposing hydrogen peroxide}
Sakamoto teaches that ultraviolet light is capable of both generating and decomposing hydrogen peroxide in water treatment depending on the wavelength being used to treat the stream. {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} With these teachings, it becomes evident why Morino discloses hydrogen peroxide is generated using ultraviolet irradiation equipment {Morino, [0002]}, as it is dependent on the wavelength of light. However, when UV irradiation equipment is used with a wavelength between 200-400nm, it will decompose hydrogen peroxide; {Sakamoto, Bottom page 2} and adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino, would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino with Sakamoto’s teachings of irradiating water to be treated with ultraviolet rays as both inventions are water treatment devices with a common goal of removing hydrogen peroxide from a water stream, and adding a UV treatment device directly upstream the hydrogen peroxide decomposition device of Morino, would further increase the decomposition efficiency, utilizing multiple treatment units with different methods of treatment.
Morino modified by Sakamoto fails to teach 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 a branch portion from the main flow path based on a comparison result.
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 {Middle page 7 re. wherein 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} upstream with respect to a branch portion from the main flow path {Middle page 7 re. sensor is downstream of the agent addition point} based on a comparison result. {Middle page 3 re. sensor}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morino modified by Sakamoto with Osawa’s teachings of 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 a branch portion from the main flow path based on a comparison result as both Morino modified by Sakamoto and Osawa disclose inventions pertaining to water treatment systems. Doing so would increase the control over the parameters that pertain to the efficiency of treatment the treatment of fluid through an automatic feedback system of the sensors to the chemical agent injection devices. {Osawa, Middle page 7}
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Benjamin 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights