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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sulfur compound addition means for adding a sulfur compound containing a peroxide group to water…” in claim 1, and its dependent claims and also the, “…sulfur compound removal means…” in Claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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. Claims 1-8 indicate either a pure water production apparatus or a pure water production method. The claims neither indicate how pure water is produced in the apparatus nor pure water is produced in the method. It Is unclear how the apparatus produces pure water and how the method produces pure water.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sitkiewitz (US10550020).
Applicant’s claims are directed toward an apparatus and a method.
Regarding Claims 1-7, Sitkiewitz discloses a pure water production apparatus comprising (See Figure 1b, which incorporates Figure 1A):
A). Sulfur compound addition means for adding a sulfur compound containing a peroxide group to water to be treated that contains organic materials (See Figure 1B which incorporates Figure 1A Items 140 and 150; persulfate Feed tank and persulfate feed pump. Persulfate is a common name for peroxydisulfate which is a sulfur compound that contains a peroxide group);
B). An ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus that irradiates with ultraviolet rays the water to be treated to which the sulfur compound was added (See Figure 1B which incorporates Figure 1A Items 210 and 220; plug flow reactor with UV lights);
C). A reverse osmosis membrane apparatus through which passes the water to be treated that was irradiated with the ultraviolet rays (See Figure 1B which incorporates Figure 1A; Figure 1B indicates that Figure 1A Item 100 can be positioned before RO#2 or At Reuse System Item 440; which would put Item 100 before RO#1)
and
D). An ion exchange resin-filled apparatus through which passes the water to be treated that was treated by the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus (See Figure 1B which incorporates Figure 1A; Item IX – Ion Exchange).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Regarding Claim 2, Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production apparatus according to claim 1, wherein concentration of the sulfur compound in the water to be treated that is supplied to the ion exchange resin-filled apparatus is 0.5 mg/L or less (See Column 2 lines 54-57. 0.5 ppm appears to correlate to 0.5 mg/L).
Regarding Claim 3, Sitkiewitz The pure water production apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a control unit, wherein the control unit controls (See Column 4 lines 42-56; Column 5 lines 36-49; Column 7 lines 24-44; TOC/TDS Analyzer inherently would have a control unit that performs at least one of the functions as recited. Please see claim mapping): at least one of an amount of the sulfur compound added by the sulfur compound addition means, an operation condition of the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus, and an operation condition of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus based on at least one of: TOC in water that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus, TOC in treated water of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus, concentration of the sulfur compound in water that is supplied to the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus, and concentration of the sulfur compound in water that is supplied to the ion exchange resin-filled apparatus such that the concentration of the sulfur compound in the water to be treated is 0.5 mg/L or less.
Regarding Claim 4, Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising sulfur compound removal means between the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus and the ion exchange resin-filled apparatus (See Figure 1B Items RO#1/RO#2 when the AOP Item 100 is placed at Item 440. RO#1 or #2 are able to remove sulfur compound removal means. Also Item 120 contains Items 180 and 190 additional UV lamps, which degrade the persulfate anion – which is interpreted to correlate to the, “sulfur compound removal means claims limitation).”
Regarding Claim 5, Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production apparatus according to claim 1, wherein concentration of the sulfur compound in the water to be treated that is to be treated by the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus is 400 mg/L or less (See Column 2 lines 54-57. 0.5 ppm appears to correlate to 0.5 mg/L).
Regarding Claim 6 Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising a control unit, wherein the control unit controls at least one of (See Column 4 lines 42-56; Column 5 lines 36-49; Column 7 lines 24-44; TOC/TDS Analyzer inherently would have a control unit that performs at least one of the functions as recited. Please see claim mapping): an amount of the sulfur compound added by the sulfur compound addition means, an operation condition of the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus, and an operation condition of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus based on at least one of: TOC in water that is supplied to the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus, TOC in treated water of the ultraviolet ray radiation apparatus, concentration of the sulfur compound in water that is supplied to the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus, and concentration of the sulfur compound in water that is supplied to the ion exchange resin-filled apparatus such that the concentration of the sulfur compound in the water to be treated that is to be treated by the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus is 400 mg/L or less.
Regarding Claim 7, Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second reverse osmosis membrane apparatus that is provided between the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus and the ion exchange resin-filled apparatus (See Rejection of Claim 1, when the Reverse Osmosis of Claim 1 is RO#1, and RO#2 is the second Reverse Osmosis).
Regarding Claim 8, Sitkiewitz discloses the pure water production method comprising: adding a sulfur compound containing a peroxide group to water to be treated that contains organic materials; irradiating with ultraviolet rays the water to be treated to which the sulfur compound was added; passing the water to be treated that was irradiated by the ultraviolet rays through a reverse osmosis membrane apparatus; and supplying the water to be treated that was treated by the reverse osmosis membrane apparatus to an ion exchange resin-filled apparatus.
Conclusion
Pertinent art to the invention in the instant application:
Marjanovic et al, Water Research, 140, 2018, pp.220-231.
Marjanovic et al discloses the use of persulfate for the use of advanced oxidation treatment of water (See Tables 1 & 2, P223 persulfate concentration to be 1.8 x 10-5M, 3.6 x 10-5M, and 9 x 10-5 M).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RAMDHANIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779