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Claims 1-16, 19-20 and 79 are currently pendingClaim 17 was previously withdrawn from consideration
Claim 18 is currently canceled
Claims 21-78 were previously canceled
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are currently amended
Claim 79 is new
Claims 1-16, 19-20 and 79 are currently rejected
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “water with oxygen.” and instead should state “water with the oxygen.” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “in water treated” and instead should state “in the water treated” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 states “a ratio of hydrogen peroxide to ozone” and instead should state “a ratio of the hydrogen peroxide to the ozone” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is 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 configured to dissolve” on line 2 of claim 79, “the electrochemical cell configured to produce” on line 5 of claim 79, “a mixing zone configured to receive” on line 8 of claim 79, and “a controller configured to control” on line 11 of claim 79.
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 § 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) 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), the electrochemical cell having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte (see FIG. 1, reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22), the electrochemical cell configured to produce hydrogen peroxide from electrolyte from the source of electrolyte (see paragraph 32), the electrolyte being contaminated with one or more emergent compounds (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘one or more emergent compounds’ to include fine particles) (see paragraphs 24-26), the electrochemical cell further 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 the 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 amended, 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 water treatment system of claim 1, wherein the source of water and the source of electrolyte are a 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 water treatment 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 an inlet of the ozonation subsystem (see FIG. 1, pipes/ports 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13) (see paragraphs 20-22).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ono teaches the water treatment 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 water treatment 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 water treatment 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 water treatment 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 water treatment 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 water treatment system of claim 4, wherein both the first conduit and the second conduit are fluidically coupled to a vessel in which the water to be treated is mixed with the mixture of the ozonated water and the 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 water treatment 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 water treatment 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 water treatment system of claim 11, wherein the source of electrolyte includes a source of oxygen and a mixer configured to receive the 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 water treatment system of claim 12, 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 water treatment 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 the 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, 19-20 and 79 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 water treatment 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 water treatment system, the sensor positioned at one of an inlet or an outlet of the water treatment 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 water treatment system of claim 15, wherein Murphy further teaches a controller in communication with the sensor, the controller configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the water treatment 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 water treatment 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 the water treated by the water treatment 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 water treatment system of claim 19, wherein Murphy further teaches a controller in communication with the sensor, the controller configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the water treatment system responsive to a measured concentration of the one of residual hydrogen peroxide or residual ozone in the water treated by the water treatment system (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 79:
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) 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), the electrochemical cell having an inlet connectable to a source of electrolyte (see FIG. 1, reduction electrode 4) (see paragraphs 20-22), the electrochemical cell configured to produce hydrogen peroxide from electrolyte from the source of electrolyte (see paragraph 32), the electrochemical cell further 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 the 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 new, independent claim 79. 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).
Furthermore, Ono does not explicitly teach a controller configured to control a ratio of the hydrogen peroxide to the ozone received in the pipe to between 10:1 and 50:1, as recited in new, independent claim 79.
Murphy further teaches a controller 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 capable of adjusting and controlling a ratio of the hydrogen peroxide to the ozone received in the mixing zone 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and focus on amended claim limitations and new claim 79, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous claim objections have been considered and are now updated (see above).
The previous 112(f) claim interpretation/analysis has been considered and is now updated (see above).
The previous 112(b) claim rejections have been considered and are now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights