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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are currently pendingClaims 17-18 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 21-78 are currently canceled
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/31/2024 and 04/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (claims 1-16 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 8-9 state “and hydrogen peroxide.” and instead should state “and the hydrogen peroxide.” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1-2 state “and source of electrolyte are the same source,” and instead should state “and the source of electrolyte are a same source,” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 2-3 state “in which water to be treated is mixed with the mixture of the ozonated water and hydrogen peroxide in a batch…” and instead should state “in which the water to be treated is mixed with the mixture of the ozonated water and the hydrogen peroxide in a batch…” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “to receive water” and instead should state “to receive the water” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “with ozone.” and instead should state “with the ozone.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 2 and 3 each state “the system” and instead should each state “the water treatment system” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the system” and instead should state “the water treatment system” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 2-3 state “the system.” and instead should state “the water treatment system.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The water treatment system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the system” and instead should state “the water treatment system” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 3 states “or residual ozone.” and instead should state “or residual ozone in water.” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an ozonation subsystem including a source of ozone configured to dissolved ozone” on line 2 of claim 1, “an electrochemical cell co-located with the ozonation subsystem, having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte, configured to produce” on lines 4-5 of claim 1, “a mixing zone configured to receive” on line 7 of claim 1, “further comprising a first conduit configured to provide” on line 1 of claim 4, “and a second conduit configured to provide” on lines 2-3 of claim 4, “further comprising a third conduit configured to flow” on line 1 of claim 5, “a first inlet coupled to an outlet of the ozonation subsystem configured to receive the ozonated water and a second inlet coupled to the outlet of the electrochemical cell and configured to receive” on lines 2-4 of claim 5, “and a mixer configured to receive” on line 2 of claim 12, “mixer is configured to saturate” on line 1 of claim 13, “wherein the ozonation subsystem is configured to dissolve” on lines 1-2 of claim 14, “a sensor configured to measure” on line 1 of claim 15, “a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust” on lines 1-2 of claim 16, “a sensor configured to measure” on line 1 of claim 19, and “a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust” on lines 1-2 of claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-16 and 19-20 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 1 recites the limitation "an electrochemical cell co-located with the ozonation subsystem, having an inlet” on line 4. It is unclear and confusing what is having an inlet, the electrochemical cell or the ozonation subsystem? FURTHERMORE, claim 1 recites the limitation “an electrochemical cell co-located with the ozonation subsystem, having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte, configured to produce” on lines 4-5. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to produce, the electrochemical cell or the ozonation subsystem or the inlet or the source of electrolyte? ADDITIONALLY, claim 1 recites the limitation “an electrochemical cell co-located with the ozonation subsystem, having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte, configured to produce hydrogen peroxide from electrolyte from the source of electrolyte, and having an outlet;” on lines 4-6. It is unclear and confusing what is having an outlet, the electrochemical cell or the ozonation subsystem? Claims 2-16 and 19-20 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the mixer” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust” on lines 1-2. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to adjust, the controller or the sensor?
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust” on lines 1-2. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to adjust, the controller or the sensor?
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO YASUSHI (JP 2009248059 A) (hereinafter “Ono”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ono teaches a water treatment system (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 1, 4, 8, 10, 13-14, and 20-22) comprising:
an ozonation subsystem (see FIG. 1, an ozone generating electrode 11) including a source of ozone configured to dissolve ozone into water from a source of water (see FIG. 1, pure water supply ports 8 and 12) to produce ozonated water (see FIG. 1, ozone water outlet 13 and a pipe 14 connected to the ozone water outlet 13) (see paragraphs 20-22);
an electrochemical cell (see FIG. 1, an ion exchange membrane cell 1 divided into a cathode chamber 2 and an anode chamber 3) co-located with the ozonation subsystem (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 20-22), having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte (see FIG. 1, reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22), configured to produce hydrogen peroxide from electrolyte from the source of electrolyte (see paragraph 32), and having an outlet (see FIG. 1, outlets 9 and 13, pipes 10 and 14, and outlet 15) (see paragraphs 20-22); and
a pipe configured to receive the ozonated water (see FIG. 1, pipes 10 and 14 form to mix the hydrogen peroxide and the ozonated water), to receive the hydrogen peroxide from the outlet of the electrochemical cell, and to form a mixture of the ozonated water and hydrogen peroxide (see FIG. 1, pipes 10 and 14 form to mix the hydrogen peroxide and the ozonated water, and outlet 15 for taking out a mixed aqueous hydrogen peroxide/ozone solution).
Although Ono teaches an ozone water outlet 13 and pipe 14, along with a hydrogen peroxide solution outlet 9 and pipe 10, and thus mixing toward outlet 15, one may broadly interpret that Ono does not explicitly teach a mixing zone, as recited in independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system of Ono including the pipes 10 and 14 along with outlet 15 to further form a mixing zone/region/area for optimization purposes and to ensure a proper mixing of the ozonated water and the hydrogen peroxide solution (see FIG. 1, pipes 10 and 14 form to mix the hydrogen peroxide and the ozonated water, and outlet 15 for taking out a mixed aqueous hydrogen peroxide/ozone solution).
Regarding Claim 2:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of water and source of electrolyte are the same source, the same source being a source of water to be treated (see FIG. 1, pure water supply ports 8 and 12) (see FIG. 1, an ozone generating electrode 11 and a reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 3:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a first conduit fluidically connecting the source of electrolyte to the inlet of the electrochemical cell and a second conduit fluidically connecting the outlet of the electrochemical cell to the ozonation subsystem (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a first conduit configured to provide the ozonated water from the ozonation subsystem to water to be treated and a second conduit configured to provide the hydrogen peroxide from the electrochemical cell to the water to be treated (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 5:
Ono teaches the system of claim 4, further comprising a third conduit configured to flow the water to be treated from a source of the water to be treated and including a first inlet coupled to an outlet of the ozonation subsystem configured to receive the ozonated water and a second inlet coupled to the outlet of the electrochemical cell and configured to receive the hydrogen peroxide from the electrochemical cell (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 6:
Ono teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first inlet is upstream of the second inlet (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 7:
Ono teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the second inlet is upstream of the first inlet (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 8:
Ono teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the third conduit further comprises a product water outlet downstream of the first and second inlets (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 9:
Ono teaches the system of claim 4, wherein both the first conduit and the second conduit are fluidically coupled to a vessel in which water to be treated is mixed with the mixture of the ozonated water and hydrogen peroxide in a batch mode treatment process (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 10:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the outlet of the electrochemical cell is fluidically coupled to a point of introduction in a conduit fluidically coupling the source of electrolyte to the inlet of the electrochemical cell (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 11:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of electrolyte is a source of oxygenated water (see FIG. 1, pure water supply ports 8 and 12) (see FIG. 1, an ozone generating electrode 11 and a reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 12:
Ono teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the source of electrolyte includes a source of oxygen and a mixer configured to receive water and oxygen from the source of oxygen and to dissolve the oxygen into the water (see FIG. 1, pure water supply ports 8 and 12) (see FIG. 1, an ozone generating electrode 11 and a reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 13:
Ono teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the mixer is configured to saturate the oxygenated water with oxygen (see FIG. 1, pipes 10 and 14 form to mix the hydrogen peroxide and the ozonated water, and outlet 15 for taking out a mixed aqueous hydrogen peroxide/ozone solution).
Regarding Claim 14:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ozonation subsystem is configured to dissolve sufficient ozone into the water such that the ozonated water is saturated with ozone (see FIG. 1, pipes 10 and 14 form to mix the hydrogen peroxide and the ozonated water, and outlet 15 for taking out a mixed aqueous hydrogen peroxide/ozone solution).
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO YASUSHI (JP 2009248059 A) (hereinafter “Ono”) (see attached English description) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. 2003/0039729 A1) (hereinafter “Murphy”).
Regarding Claim 15:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1.
Ono does not explicitly teach a sensor configured to measure a concentration of one or more contaminants in an aqueous solution passing through the system, the sensor positioned at one of an inlet or an outlet of the system.
Murphy further teaches a sensor configured to measure concentrations, and also teaches a controller/computer (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Ono and Murphy are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system of Ono to include a concentration sensor and a controller/computer of Murphy for optimization purposes (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Ono in view of Murphy teaches the system of claim 15, wherein Murphy further teaches a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the system responsive to a measured concentration of the one or more contaminants (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Ono and Murphy are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system of Ono to include a concentration sensor and a controller/computer of Murphy for optimization purposes (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Regarding Claim 19:
Ono teaches the system of claim 1.
Ono does not explicitly teach a sensor configured to measure a concentration of one of residual hydrogen peroxide or residual ozone in water treated by the system.
Murphy further teaches a sensor configured to measure concentrations, and also teaches a controller/computer (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Ono and Murphy are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system of Ono to include a concentration sensor and a controller/computer of Murphy for optimization purposes (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Regarding Claim 20:
Ono teaches the system of claim 19, further comprising a controller in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the system responsive to a measured concentration of the one of residual hydrogen peroxide or residual ozone (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Ono and Murphy are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system of Ono to include a concentration sensor and a controller/computer of Murphy for optimization purposes (see Murphy paragraph 157 further discussing a spectrophotometer and a computer for data analysis).
Other References Considered
Early et al. (U.S. 2011/0168611 A1) (hereinafter “Early”) teaches a wastewater treatment system and method.
Hatten (U.S. 2012/0267318 A1) (hereinafter “Hatten”) teaches a wastewater treatment system and method.
LIAO et al. (U.S. 2015/0108065 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) teaches a method for wastewater treatment.
LI et al. (U.S. 2020/0024162 A1) (hereinafter “Li”) teaches a method and device for sewage treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773