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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13-23 in the reply filed on 2/17/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 13-23 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 term “decentralized” as used in the claims is unclear. The literal meaning of ‘decentralized’ is parts distributed at different locations, which is not possible for a water treatment plant components. The other possibilities are (1) units being remotely located and (2) possibility of isolating (taking off-line) parts of the unit process-wise (applicant’s disclosed system appears to be an assembly of separate modules like a filtration module and a cleaning module.)
Applicant argues: “Rather, the claimed decentralized water treatment unit is a water treatment unit suitable for use outside a centralized water treatment infrastructure, consistent with the disclosure's description of self-contained units for remote or rural use.” This does not fairly establish any metes and bounds for the term “decentralized.” For example, would a house-hold water treatment system in a city or suburban home be decentralized by it being remote, as inside a home, or centralized because it is connected to the city water supply?
The term “self-contained” is unclear and indefinite. The only disclosure for this element is in [03] of the specification, “[03] These self-contained systems eliminate contaminants such as pathogens …” which does not provide any details on what is meant by self-contained, to establish any metes and bounds for the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claim(s) 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ukon (US 2008/0093282.)
PNG
media_image1.png
581
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Decentralized: for want of a clearer definition, the term decentralized is assumed as being capable of isolating parts of the unit operations, or a unit which can be installed anywhere as needed.
Ukon teaches a water treatment unit that has a prefilter (4), a reverse osmosis unit (2,) an electrolyzer (17 or 31, fig. 2,) which produces chlorine gas/acidified cleaning solution, and pumps 22 and 41 feeding water to the electrolyzer. The electrolyzer has membranes separating anodic and cathodic compartments (fig. 2) and the cleaning solution can be pumped to the Filters through line 18.
Self-contained: applicant has no clear definition as to what are included in the term “self-contained.” Since claim 1 recites only two modules: a filtration module and a cleaning module, both of which are present in the reference, the reference meets the “self-contained” limitation. Therefore, claim 13 is anticipated.
Note: claim limitations like A and/or B signifies three possibilities: either A, or B, or both And B. In such cases the office’s policy, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is to ignore the other possibilities, when one of the alternates is present in the reference.
Claim 14: clean-in-place vessel 15.
Claim 15: pH and ORP sensors – [0040].
Claim 16: while not explicitly teaching this, the Ukon system is capable of recycling cleaning solution – see the figure: there are sufficient flow lines for this.
Claim 17, Control devices:[0057.] Composition of the cleaning solution – [0040], teaching pH, ORP, etc. Also see [0035-0038] for the electrolyte solution, which is sodium chloride solution. While not explicitly stated, it is common to use conductivity sensors to determine the conductivity of the solution, which directly correlates to concentration, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. In fact, one would use conductivity as a means to monitor and control the electrolyzer feed solution.
Claim 18: draining diluted or depleted solution – see tank 50 and its drain.
Claim 19: while Ukon is silent on a saturated salt solution tank, it does teach that sodium chloride is the electrolyte salt. Therefore, providing such a container of sodium chloride solution is implied, or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Being saturated is a process limitation.
Claim 20, 21 – the valves claimed appears to be valve 361 and 362 in figures 3A and 3B in applicant’s disclosure. While three-port valves are not shown, Ukon has separate lines 38 and 39 for the same purpose for alkaline and acidic outflows from the electrolyzer – see fig. 2. While Ukon does not show any valve, providing valves for diverting, controlling and shut-off would have been implied or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 22: Ukon also teaches producing a strong alkaline solution from the cathode compartment. See line 39 in fig. 2. While Ukon is silent on using this solution for cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this solution to adjust or control the pH of the acid solution as needed, which is common sense.
Claim 23: the term “detached” is assumed to mean taken offline during filtration cycle, which is the case with Ukon.
Claim(s)13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over CN 106422794 in view of Ukon as applied in rejection 1.
CN, fig. 6, is copied herein with annotations. It has a water treatment system having a pre-treatment unit and a reverse osmosis membrane. The concentrate output of the RO is partly used to generate acidic and alkaline solutions by electrolyzer 16 which are supplied to tank 24 via the lines as annotated. The picture is overall self-explanatory. The reference teaches that these lines from 16 to 24 have valves, but they are not shown in the figure. Having valves in these lines make them controllable and therefore, capable of mixing the acid and base solutions as needed.
PNG
media_image2.png
620
1025
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN is silent on the pump or pumps supplying concentrate water to the electrolyzer, but teaches a valve 18 to control the flow. CN teaching appears to use either gravity flow or the pressure of the concentrate to make it flow to the electrolyzer. However, providing a pump if needed would have been obvious as routine and within the capability of one of ordinary skill.
Clean-in-place vessel – 24. CN is silent on the controls and the sensors, but such details are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the operation of the system. Also automation of a manual control system is prima facie obvious – MPEP 2144.04. For the sensors, etc., and other details of the dependent claims, see Ukon in rejection 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings of known references to overcome the deficiencies of CN – see MPEP 2143, rationales A-G.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments about the 112(b) rejection and the “and/or” limitation are addressed therein. Extensive arguments citing the first and the second pumps are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 13 does not require separate pumps to flow solution through the individual compartments.
Regarding the rejection over the CN reference, the examiner observes that providing pump for making a flow happen is prima facie obvious.
MPEP 2143: rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights