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 .
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 20 and 21 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.
Claim 21: the term, “the desalination” has an antecedent basis problem. Suggest removing “the.”
Claim 22: “a frontal filtration type with a substantially vertical percolation” is unclear. The term “type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is meant by “frontal filtration” is also unclear – no clear definition.
The usage of the term “vertical percolation,” which can mean both upward and downward flow direction, and how it limits the claims, is unclear. For purpose of examination, a downward trickling flow is assumed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Gaid et al (US 2015/0218012) in view of CN-404 (CN202744404) and CN-888 (CN 1806888)
PNG
media_image1.png
424
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The independent claims 1, 13, 20 and 21: Gaid teaches a water treatment system and method comprising floatation and gravity filter – see fig. 2 copied herein. Incoming water at 20 after coagulation, flocculation, etc., is treated in a floatation reactor 29 which overlaps the gravity filter 33. The gravity filter has layer thickness 1.5 – 3 meters [0089] and can have two of about equal heights ([0090]-[0092] and claims 36-37,) meaning, for a two-layer, the height of each layer would be 0.75-1.5 meters. For particle sizes for the grits/sand/carbon, see (Id.) The speed of filtration through the gravity filter is at 15 m/h [0110].
Gaid’s filter media 330 is rated as high speed (10-30 m/h: see claim 23) Gaid’s filter media 330 can be of two or more layers, each layer being of different material, like sand and activated carbon. See [0089]-0093]. However, Gaid does not teach a separate pressure-driven high-rate media filter downstream of media filter 330, and the outlet supply (which is only a pipeline connection.)
Media filters separated from the floatation reactor are known in the art, such as taught by CN-404 with pipeline connection from the floatation reactor. Therefore, having a separate filter downstream of the floatation reactor is not a patentable invention. Further, Gaid teaches two or more layers for filter 330 of different materials. Gaid also teaches backwashing the filters in [0102]. This backwashing can cause intermixing of the materials in the layers. See CN-888, which teaches two bed filters in series, one is activated carbon and the other is sand/quartz. Sand bed filter gets blocked, requiring periodic backwash, whereas carbon bed gets saturated by adsorption and needs periodic replacement or other treatment, in addition to the backwashes. Therefore, separating the layers to two separate filters in Gaid is advantageous as taught by CN-888, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the application.
Regarding the “pressure-driven” HRMF, while CN-404 is silent, since the high speed sand filter 9 in CN is pipe-connected, and the filters in series in CN-888 are pipe-connected too, a driving pressure provided by a pump or gravity will be required to make the water flow through the filters, which is implied, or would have been obvious. Note that CN 888 has a pump upstream of filter 1 (fig. 1). Further, Gaid teaches high-speed filtering in filter 330. Therefore, any filter downstream filter also must handle the same speed to prevent bottlenecks, and one of ordinary skill would be capable of designing the system with adequate pumps or other means as needed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to (MPEP 2143:)
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield 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.
Claims 20, 21 and the dependent claims: most dependent claim elements are already addressed. Particle sizes in Gaid are within the claimed ranges: [0091], activated carbon 1.2-2.5 mm; others 0.5 to 0.8 mm. Bed heights would be within the claimed range if total height of 1.5m is divided into two equal heights, it would make 0.75m each. Treatment by reverse osmosis – see [0111] of Gaid. Monolayer – when the two-layer filter is separated, it becomes two monolayer filters in Gaid. Materials – already discussed. Location of the filter media is at the lower wall of the floatation reactor, see the figure. Media heights and particle sizes are already discussed. It would also have been obvious to optimize these to tailor for the flow rates and impurities to be removed. GAC media, for example, are granular and commercially available, and therefore, the particle size also would depend on what is commonly available. The inlet and the outlet connections are as recited or as modified by the secondary references.
Vertical percolation: the filtration flow in Gaid and in the combination are all by vertical percolation. Percolation only means a flow through a porous or filter media. The flow is vertically down, as in applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, CN-404 is used to show providing a filter downstream of the floatation reactor with connecting piping. CN 888 is used to show the reason for one of ordinary skill to consider separating the Gaid filter media layers.
Argument about “pressurized filter” is unpersuasive. Applicant’s disclosure teaches pressure or gravity driven filter (page 11, lines 24-25,) and generally pressure driven between 0.4 and 5 bar above atmosphere (page 12, lines 9-11.)
The argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
123
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gaid does not attribute the increased filtration speed to thick gravity bed. Nor is it logical that a thick bed would provide increased filtration speed. Gaid teaches 1.5 to 3 m bed height, which can be divided into two or three separate layers, and such division would make the bed height to within the claimed range as shown.
Applicant’s invention is adding a downstream high rate media filter to the apparatus of Gaid, which applicant cited in the disclosure (WO-A-2014044619). Such as added filter is unpatentable as shown.
Other arguments, like detailed advantages of the invention, are not commensurate in scope with the claims and the rejection.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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