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 Status
Claims 26-50 are pending:
Claims 26-39 are rejected.
Claims 40-50 have been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT 102021000011924, filed on 05/10/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 40-50 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 26-39 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 26-29, 32-34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ende (US 2004/0026238).
Regarding claim 26, Ende teaches a water treatment device (water treatment device, see ABS) for metal removal and for water softening, the water treatment device comprising:
an inlet connection (inner chamber 42, conduit section 36; conduit section 20, see ¶27) for the water to be treated;
an outlet connection (conduit area 24; outer chamber 41) for the treated water;
a body (tube-shaped shell 23) delimiting on the inside a treatment volume in fluid communication with said inlet and outlet connections (see ¶11);
at least a first electrode (electrode 22.2) and a second electrode (electrode 22.1) arranged to cause electrolysis of the water contained in the treatment volume;
at least one separating means (insulating bodies 50) arranged to divide said treatment volume into at least two chambers that include a first chamber (electrode chamber 21.2) containing said first electrode and a second chamber (electrode chamber 21.1) containing said second electrode (i.e. electrode chamber 21.1);
wherein both the first chamber and the second chamber include an inlet (the inlet is the shell of the conduit section which separates the conduit from the chambers; it should be noted that nothing prevents in claim 1 the inlet from being represented as a surface, see ¶27 and Fig. 1) and
an outlet for the water (the outlet is the outside shell 23 of the chambers, see ¶22 and Fig. 1), in which the inlet of each of the first and second chambers is in communication with said inlet connection of the water treatment device, so that the incoming water in the water treatment device can flow in parallel in the at least two chambers (see ¶28);
wherein, in use, one of said first and second electrodes is positively polarizable so that the corresponding chamber operates as an anodic chamber, and the other of the first and second electrodes is negatively polarizable so that the corresponding chamber operates as a cathodic chamber (wherein the first and second electrodes are alternatively positively and negatively polarized, see claim 1 which means that either chamber can be the anode chamber or cathode chamber); and
at least one limescale trap (bulk material such as activated carbon; see ¶22) that is placed inside the cathodic chamber and is adapted to capture the limescale precipitated in said chamber as a result of the treatment ("the calcite is deposited on the individual carbon particles of the bulk material", see ¶27).
Regarding claim 27, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said limescale trap is adapted to facilitate, during operation, formation of crystals by acting as a growth center and is adapted to retain the precipitate (the calcite precipitation occurs in the bulk material of the electrode chamber 21.2, see ¶31).
Regarding claim 28, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said limescale trap comprises a filter body (shell 23 and conduit section 20 both function to keep particles of the bulk material in the space, see ¶23 therefore acting as a filter body and part of the limescale trap).
Regarding claim 29, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 28, wherein the filter body of the limescale trap is pre-loaded with limescale crystals (this limitation pertains to a method/process step, the step of pre-loading with limescale crystals does not physically alter the structure of the filter. The device of Ende is capable of being pre-loaded with limescale crystals). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding claim 32, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, further comprising a respective limescale trap (i.e. bulk material) in each of the at least two chambers (i.e. chambers 21.1, 21.2) so that the water treatment device is symmetric (see Fig. 2 wherein the chamber 21.2, 21.2 are symmetric) and each of the at least two chambers is operable either as a cathodic chamber or as an anodic chamber (wherein the first and second electrodes are alternatively positively and negatively polarized, see ¶1 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 33, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 32, further comprising means for reversing the polarity of said first and second electrodes (electronic switching device for controlling the polarization-reversing process, see ¶33), thus being able to alternatively use one of the at least two chambers as a cathodic chamber for trapping the limescale in a basic environment wherein the limescale is accumulated in the respective trap (because of polarization reversal, the calcite deposit at the carbon particles are removed and floated out, see ¶27), and the other of the at least two chambers as a washing anodic chamber in an acidic environment wherein the accumulated limescale is removed from the respective trap (this function is inherent because the device of Ende ).
Regarding claim 34, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said separating means comprises a porous septum (insulating bodies are permeable to the water to be treated, see ¶7).
Regarding claim 37, Ende teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, arranged to mix the flow of water exiting said the at least two chambers before passing into the outlet connection (see ¶7 and ¶23 wherein the tube 20, shell 23 and insulating bodies 50 are permeable or have openings).
Claims 26-29, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huber (DE 102012101031).
Regarding claim 26, Huber teaches a water treatment device for metal removal and for water softening, the water treatment device comprising:
an inlet connection (inlet 11) for the water to be treated;
an outlet connection (outlet 12) for the treated water;
a body (container 10) delimiting on the inside a treatment volume in fluid communication with said inlet and outlet connections;
at least a first electrode (cathode 40) and a second electrode (anode 50) arranged to cause electrolysis of the water contained in the treatment volume;
at least one separating means (partition 15, sound insulation 16) arranged to divide said treatment volume into at least two chambers that include a first chamber (cathode space 13) containing said first electrode (i.e. cathode 40) and a second chamber (anode compartment 14) containing said second electrode (i.e. anode 50);
wherein both the first chamber and the second chamber include an inlet (near upper sieve 18) and an outlet for the water (near lower sieve 18), in which the inlet of each of the first and second chambers is in communication with said inlet connection of the water treatment device, so that the incoming water in the water treatment device can flow in parallel in the at least two chambers (see Fig. 2);
wherein, in use, one of said first and second electrodes is positively polarizable so that the corresponding chamber operates as an anodic chamber (see Fig. 2 wherein the + is associated with the anode compartment), and the other of the first and second electrodes is negatively polarizable so that the corresponding chamber operates as a cathodic chamber (see Fig. 2 wherein the – is associated with the cathode compartment 13); and
at least one limescale trap (mineral pack, see pg. 4) that is placed inside the cathodic chamber (cathode space or the space of the mineral processing, the mineral fluidized bed or the mineral fill, see pg. 4) and is adapted to capture the limescale precipitated in said chamber as a result of the treatment (the dissolved lime is precipitated on the surface of a mineral press, a mineral fluid bed or a mineral bed, in particular quartz and / or quartz flour, see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said limescale trap is adapted to facilitate, during operation, formation of crystals by acting as a growth center and is adapted to retain the precipitate (the applied DC voltage at the cathode 40 and anode 50 and thus the electrolysis current adjusted accordingly to precipitate the required amount of calcium crystals, see pg. 4; lime electrolytically by means of direct current in a cathode space (13) at a cathode (40) is precipitated, see pg. 8; the phrase “growth center” in this limitation is interpreted to mean a specific location or surface where dissolved minerals crystallize and build up).
Regarding claim 28, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said limescale trap comprises a filter body (sieves 18 are adjacent mineral pack in cathode chamber 13 therefore is considered as part of the mineral pack).
Regarding claim 29, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 28, wherein the filter body of the limescale trap is pre-loaded with limescale crystals (this limitation pertains to a method/process step, the step of pre-loading with limescale crystals does not physically alter the structure of the filter. The device of Ende is capable of being pre-loaded with limescale crystals). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding claim 34, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, wherein said separating means comprises a porous septum (semipermeable membrane, see pg. 3)…
Regarding claim 37, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, arranged to mix the flow of water exiting said the at least two chambers before passing into the outlet connection (see the embodiment shown in Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 30-31, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (DE 102012101031) in view of Zhang (CN 206940502).
Regarding claim 30, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26, a filter element (upper and lower screen 18) part of the limestone trap
Huber does not teach the filter element is a fabric element.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhang teaches an electric chemical desalting demineralized water device (see ABS) comprising a fabric element (non-woven fabrics, chemical fiber filter cloth, see claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the filter screen of Huber with non-woven fabrics or chemical fiber filter cloth of Zhang because it is the simple substitution of one known screen means with another known non-woven fabrics means or chemical fiber filter cloth means obviously resulting in suitable barrier material with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 31, Huber and Zhang teach the water treatment device according to claim 30, wherein said fabric element is preloaded with limestone crystals by a bath in limestone water and subsequent drying (this limitation pertains to a method/process step, the step of pre-loading with limescale crystals does not physically alter the structure of the filter. The device of Ende is capable of being pre-loaded with limescale crystals). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding claim 36, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26.
Huber does not teach an anionic membrane and a cationic membrane which are selective respectively towards the passage of negative and positive ions, said anionic membrane and said cationic membrane are arranged to define three chambers within the treatment volume, including said anodic and cathodic chambers and a third chamber for collecting demineralised water.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhang teaches an electric chemical desalting demineralized water device (see ABS) comprising an anionic membrane (anion-exchange membrane) and a cationic membrane (cation-exchange membrane) which are selective respectively towards the passage of negative and positive ions (this is an inherent characteristic of the membrane devices), said anionic membrane and said cationic membrane are arranged to define three chambers within the treatment volume (three chambers shown in Fig. 3), including said anodic and cathodic chambers and a third chamber for collecting demineralised water (the chamber is capable of meeting the intended use, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Huber by incorporating the anionic membrane, cationic membrane and third chamber as disclosed by Zhang because it forms a configuration that has high efficient and spontaneous crystallization (Zhang, see pg. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26 Huber does not teach a plurality of stages in parallel, each of the plurality of stages comprising: a respective treatment volume; a respective pair of electrodes; a separating means; a limescale trap; and optionally anionic and cationic membranes or anionic and cationic resins; all according to claim 26.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhang teaches an electric chemical desalting demineralized water device (see ABS) comprising a plurality of stages in parallel (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Huber by duplicating said device to provide a plurality of stages in parallel as disclosed by Zhang because this configuration is beneficial for targeting the actual need and water condition (Zhang, see pg. 8).
The combination of Huber and Zhang teaches “each of the plurality of stages comprising: a respective treatment volume; a respective pair of electrodes; a separating means; a limescale trap; and optionally anionic and cationic membranes or anionic and cationic resins; all according to claim 26”.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (DE 102012101031) in view of Wilkins (CN 106396225).
Regarding claim 35, Huber teaches the water treatment device according to claim 26.
Huber does not teach cationic and anionic resins in at least one of the chambers, said cationic and anionic resins being suitable for retaining ions and releasing hydrogen or hydroxyls to water.
In a related field of endeavor, Wilkins teaches a water treatment system (see ABS) comprising cationic (cation exchange resin, see pg. 5) and anionic resins (anion exchange resin, see pg. 5) in at least one of the chambers, said cationic and anionic resins being suitable for retaining ions and releasing hydrogen or hydroxyls to water (see pg. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Huber by incorporating cationic and anionic resins as disclosed by Wilkins because it is capable of producing consistent quality of purified water (Wilkins, see pg. 9).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (DE 102012101031) in view of Katzarov (EP 3208242) and further in view of Wilkins (CN 106396225).
Regarding claim 39, Huber teaches the water treatment system.
Huber does not teach a water treatment device according to claim 26; a water activator placed upstream of the treatment device in such a way that the treatment device is supplied with water subjected to pass through said activator; wherein the activator comprises: a conduit crossed by the flow of water; and a series of fixed blades contained in said body and aligned along the direction of flow and rotated with respect to each other.
In a related field of endeavor, Katzarov teaches an ultrasound method and device for disinfecting water (see ABS) comprising a water activator (water disinfection device 1)…wherein the activator comprises: a conduit (cylindrical shell 2) crossed by the flow of water; and a series of fixed blades (blades 6 tube 7) contained in said body and aligned along the direction of flow and rotated with respect to each other (blades are rotated, see ¶29).
In a related field of endeavor, Wilkins teaches a water treatment system (see ABS) comprising a water activator (carbon bed filter 10/particulate filter 20) placed upstream of the treatment device in such a way that the treatment device (RCEDU unit 30) is supplied with water subjected to pass through said activator (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the device Huber by incorporating a water activator as disclosed by Katzarov in an upstream position as disclosed by Wilkins because doing so helps to reduce the filtering load on the electrochemical deionization unit, and prevents scale and deposits (Wilkins, see pg. 5) which is beneficial for electrochemical deionization unit in Huber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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 L. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773