Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 18/554,019 filed on 5 October 2023. The application is a 371 of PCT/ JP2022/ 012163, with priority to Japanese application JP 2021-065340 filed on 7 April 2021.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
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.
Claims 2 and 6 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.
Specifically, claims 2 and 6 are indefinite because they recite that the supply water flow rate is within a range of between 30% and 100%, without identifying what reference flow rate the supply water flow rate is defined relative to. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined (MPEP 2173.05(b)). In other words, the claims are indefinite because it is not clear what the supply flow rate is 30% to 100% of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Zhang” (CN 106927608 A to Zhang et al; hereinafter, citations attributed to the text of Zhang are taken from a machine translation of the document into English).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an electrodeionization system (para [0007]-[0010]), comprising:
a plurality of electrodeionization devices installed in parallel (para [0042]; figure 1, plurality of electrodeionization devices 15 in parallel).
a supply water flow rate regulator that varies a flow rate of supply water to the plurality of electrodeionization devices (para [0042]-[0050] and figure 1, either of “system influent valve” 1 and “concentrate manual regulating shut-off valve” 10 can read on the claimed supply water flow rate regulator);
a concentrated water flow rate adjustor that adjusts, for each electrodeionization device, a flow rate of concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices (para [0042] and figure 1, each EDI device 15 has its own corresponding electric valve 12, shut-off valve 14, and check valve 17; either of valve 12 or 14 reads on the claimed concentrated water flow rate adjustor); and
a concentrated water flow rate maintainer that maintains the flow rate of the concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices at a certain level or higher (per instant specification [0031]-[0034] and instant figure 2, the control valve 1E on the purified water main flow path, and the control valve 1I on the concentrate water main path, together constitute a “concentrated water flow rate maintainer”; as shown in Zhang figure 1, there is a control valve 20 on the purified water main flow path and a control valve 23 on the concentrate main path),
wherein the concentrated water flow rate maintaining means is installed only in a main flow path in which a plurality of sub-flow paths are integrated and a main path in which a plurality of sub-paths are integrated (figure 1, control valve 20 is installed in the pure water effluent main (a main flow path) which is formed by merger of the diluate streams of each of the parallel EDI devices 15 (a plurality of sub-flow paths). Control valve 23 is installed in the concentrate discharge main (a main path) which is formed by merger of the concentrate streams of each of the EDI devices 15 (a plurality of sub-paths)), wherein desalted water produced in each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices flows through each of the plurality of sub-flow paths (the sub-flow paths are the diluate streams of each of the EDI devices 15) while concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices flows through each of the plurality of sub-paths (the sub-paths are the concentrate streams of each of the EDI devices 15).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the electrodeionization system according to claim 1, wherein the supply water flow rate regulator increases or decreases the flow rate of supply water within a range of 30% to 100% (para [0051], under normal operation, valve 10 is set at such a flow rate that the ratio of supply water flow rate to product water flow rate is 90%, which falls within the claimed range of 30% to 100%).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the electrodeionization system according to claim 1, wherein the concentrated water flow rate maintainer includes a first control valve provided in the main flow path and a second control valve provided in the main path (figure 1, control valve 20 in the main flow path and control valve 23 in the main path).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches a control method for an electrodeionization system comprising a plurality of electrodeionization devices installed in parallel (figure 1, the system comprises several EDI devices 15 installed in parallel), the control method comprising:
(i) varying a flow rate of supply water to the plurality of electrodeionization devices (para [0050], “flow rate can be adjusted by the concentrate manual adjustment shut-off valve 10 and the module concentrate adjustment shut-off valve 14”; figure 1, since valve 10 is installed on a supply line that is shared between all of the plurality of electrodeionization devices, it varies a flow rate to the plurality of devices, while valves 14 each vary a flow rate from an individual device within the plurality);
(ii) adjusting, for each electrodeionization device, a flow rate of concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices (para [0050], “flow rate can be adjusted by ... module concentrate inlet adjustment shut-off valve 14”; para [0051], the valve 14 is used to adjust the flow rate of concentrated water discharged from the EDI devices); and
(iii) maintaining the flow rate of the concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices at a certain level or higher using a first control valve and a second control valve (figure 1, first control valve 20 and second control valve 23 are disposed on the purified water outlet main flow path and the concentrate water outlet main path. When open, they allow water to flow through),
wherein the first control valve is provided only in a main flow path in which a plurality of sub-flow paths are integrated while the second control valve is provided only in a main path in which a plurality of sub-paths are integrated, wherein desalted water produced in each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices flows through each of the plurality of sub-flow paths while concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of electrodeionization devices flows through each of the plurality of sub-paths (figure 1, control valve 20 is installed in the pure water effluent main (a main flow path) which is formed by merger of the diluate streams of each of the parallel EDI devices 15 (a plurality of sub-flow paths through which desalted water produced in each of the plurality of EDI devices flows). Control valve 23 is installed in the concentrate discharge main (a main path) which is formed by merger of the concentrate streams of each of the EDI devices 15 (a plurality of sub-paths through which concentrated water discharged from each of the plurality of EDI devices flows)).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the control method for an electrodeionization system according to claim 5, wherein the varying (i) includes increasing or decreasing the flow rate of supply water within a range of 30% to 100% (para [0051], the ratio of inlet water to product water flow rate is increased or decreased by adjusting supply valves including valve 10; under normal operation, valves are set such that the ratio of supply water flow rate to product water flow rate is 90%, which falls within the claimed range of 30% to 100%).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the electrodeionization system according to claim 1, wherein the concentrated water flow rate adjustor is a valve provided in each of the sub-paths (para [0042] and figure 1, each EDI device 15 has its own corresponding electric valve 12, shut-off valve 14, and check valve 17; either of valve 12 or 14 reads on the claimed concentrated water flow rate adjustor). Zhang also teaches the use of manual regulating shut-off valves to regulate water flow rate (per para [0042], valve 10 (corresponding to claimed supply water flow rate regulator) is a manual shut-off valve; para [0050]-[0051], valves 10 and 14 are used in concert to regulate the flow rate of concentrated water to each EDI device).
However, Zhang does not specify that concentrated water flow rate adjustor valve is a manual valve (para [0042], valve 12 is described as an electric valve, and valve 14 is described a “shut-off valve” without specifying whether it is electric or manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Zhang’s shut-off valve 14 as a manual shut-off valve, based on Zhang’s teaching that valves 14 are used for adjusting the flow rates to individual EDI devices (para [0051]-[0052]), and valve 10 which is also used for adjusting the flow rate to the EDI devices is a manual valve (para [0051]-[0052]), indicating that manual valves are suitable for valve 14’s intended purpose. The selection of a known component based on its suitability for the intended purpose is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2114.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights