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.
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 2, 8 and 13 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.
The term “high pressure” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure” 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. For examination purposes a pump having any pressure will be considered to read on the claims.
The term “high pressure” in claims 8 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high pressure” is not defined by the claims, 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. For examination purposes, the term is broadly interpreted as reading on any operating pressure. Accordingly, any operating pressure will be considered to read on the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the reservoir tank" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to depend from claim 12.
\
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuda et al. (US 2015/0021264).
Per claim 1, Tsuda et al. teach a liquid waste treatment system ([0001] This disclosure relates to treatment methods and treatment systems for plant effluent designed to improve treatment efficiency when treating plant effluent containing organic compounds using a membrane bioreactor tank.), the system comprising:
an ultra-filtration stage (3) comprising:
an ultra-filtration filter configured to separate the liquid waste into a first
permeate and a first concentrate ([0052] Placed downstream of the means of mixing 2, the membrane bioreactor tank 3 provides the mixing treatment effluent 13 with aerobic biological treatment and solid-liquid separation treatment.), and
a diffuser positioned at an inlet to the ultra-filtration filter, the diffuser
connected to an air blower and configured to introduce air into the liquid waste ([0052] A normally used aerobic biological treatment device, the membrane bioreactor tank 3 features an aeration tube that supplies air into the tank and a means of solid-liquid separation comprising a separation membrane or membranes.) to inherently reduce the density of the liquid waste (i.e., since air has a much lower density than water) and to generate a crossflow within the ultra-filtration filter (i.e., since air will travel upward in the water due to the air having a lower density relative to the water and water will travel laterally from the concentrate side of the membrane to the permeate side of the membrane);
and
a reverse osmosis stage (6) configured to receive the first permeate from the ultra-filtration stage and separate the first permeate into a second permeate and a second concentrate ([0055] The aerobically treated water 14 may be used as process water (reused water) for a cooling tower or the like, sprinkler water, toilet flushing water, or the like. It may also be fed to a post-treatment reverse osmosis membrane separation device for further purification.; [0060] In FIG. 2, the post-treatment reverse osmosis membrane separation device 6 is placed downstream of the membrane bioreactor tank 3 to separate part of the aerobically treated water 14 into a post-treatment RO filtrate 18 and a post-treatment RO concentrate 19.), the second permeate being a non-potable water for use or re-use ([0060] The post-treatment RO filtrate 18 may be used as raw water for pure water or drinking water, makeup water for a boiler/cooling tower, agricultural water, or the like.).
Per claim 4, regarding wherein the liquid waste comprises at least one of urine, feces, rinse water, and trace toilet incidentals, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, Tsuda et al. discloses wherein the liquid waste comprises at least one of urine, feces, rinse water, and trace toilet incidentals ([0072] The microorganism activating agent 21 added in the mixing treatment step comprises nutrients taken up by aerobic microorganisms and/or fibrous material. Examples of the microorganism activating agent 21 preferably include domestic wastewater, artificial sewage, effluent from a food or food processing plant, kitchen wastewater, and supernatant liquor of a sludge digestion tank. It is particularly preferable to use domestic wastewater. Domestic wastewater comprises gray water and/or human excrement.).
Per claim 5, regarding wherein the liquid waste is a clarified liquid received from a buffer tank system it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). The examiner notes that that applicant does not positively recite that a buffer tank system of part of the instant water treatment system.
Per claim 6, regarding wherein the second permeate discharged as non-potable water for use or re-use meets at least one of: chemical oxygen demand (COD) ≤ 50 mg/L; total suspended solids (TSS) ≤ 10 mg/L; total Nitrogen (N) > 70% reduction relative to the total N in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; total Phosphorus (P) > 80% reduction relative to the total P in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; and E. coli ≤ 100 per L, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, Tsuda et al. teach wherein the second permeate discharged as non-potable water for use or re-use meets at least one of: chemical oxygen demand (COD) ≤ 50 mg/L; total suspended solids (TSS) ≤ 10 mg/L; total Nitrogen (N) > 70% reduction relative to the total N in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; total Phosphorus (P) > 80% reduction relative to the total P in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; and E. coli ≤ 100 per L (Table 2, SS RO filtrate - ND).
Per claim 7, regarding wherein the ultra-filtration stage operates at a first pressure and the reverse osmosis stages operate at a second pressure, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation or a limitation of intended use that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 8, wherein the reverse osmosis stage operates at a high pressure, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation or a limitation of intended use that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, it is noted that the RO stage inherently operates at a “high pressure,” as broadly interpreted by the examiner.
Per claim 11, Tsuda et al. teach a method for treatment of liquid waste ([0001] This disclosure relates to treatment methods and treatment systems for plant effluent designed to improve treatment efficiency when treating plant effluent containing organic compounds using a membrane bioreactor tank.), the method comprising:
blowing air into a liquid waste (([0052] A normally used aerobic biological treatment device, the membrane bioreactor tank 3 features an aeration tube that supplies air into the tank and a means of solid-liquid separation comprising a separation membrane or membranes.)) to inherently reduce the density of the liquid waste (i.e., since air has a much lower density than water) and to generate crossflow (i.e., since air will travel upward in the water due to the air having a lower density relative to the water and water will travel laterally from the concentrate side of the membrane to the permeate side of the membrane);
filtering the liquid waste in an ultra-filtration stage (3) to separate a first permeate (14; [0067] This makes it possible to separate at least part of the aerobically treated water 14) and a first concentrate (15; [0039] 15 Excess sludge; [0052] Placed downstream of the means of mixing 2, the membrane bioreactor tank 3 provides the mixing treatment effluent 13 with aerobic biological treatment and solid-liquid separation treatment.);
discharging the first concentrate (15; Fig. 2);
filtering the first permeate in a reverse osmosis stage (6) to separate a second
permeate (18) and a second concentrate (19; [0055] The aerobically treated water 14 may be used as process water (reused water) for a cooling tower or the like, sprinkler water, toilet flushing water, or the like. It may also be fed to a post-treatment reverse osmosis membrane separation device for further purification.; [0060] In FIG. 2, the post-treatment reverse osmosis membrane separation device 6 is placed downstream of the membrane bioreactor tank 3 to separate part of the aerobically treated water 14 into a post-treatment RO filtrate 18 and a post-treatment RO concentrate 19.); and
discharging the second permeate as a useable water ([0060] The post-treatment RO filtrate 18 may be used as raw water for pure water or drinking water, makeup water for a boiler/cooling tower, agricultural water, or the like.).
Per claim 14, further comprising recirculating the second concentrate to filter in the reverse osmosis stage (Fig. 2).
Per claim 15, wherein the second permeate discharged as non-potable water for use or re-use meets at least one of: chemical oxygen demand (COD) ≤ 50 mg/L; total suspended solids (TSS) ≤ 10 mg/L; total Nitrogen (N) > 70% reduction relative to the total N in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; total Phosphorus (P) > 80% reduction relative to the total P in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; and E. coli ≤ 100 per L (Table 2, SS RO filtrate - ND).
Per claim 16, wherein the liquid waste comprises at least one of urine, feces, rinse water, and trace toilet incidentals ([0072] The microorganism activating agent 21 added in the mixing treatment step comprises nutrients taken up by aerobic microorganisms and/or fibrous material. Examples of the microorganism activating agent 21 preferably include domestic wastewater, artificial sewage, effluent from a food or food processing plant, kitchen wastewater, and supernatant liquor of a sludge digestion tank. It is particularly preferable to use domestic wastewater. Domestic wastewater comprises gray water and/or human excrement.).
Per claim 18, wherein discharging the first concentrate comprises discharging the first concentrate to a system (4) for separation of solid waste in concentrate ([0058] The anoxic tank 4 may also have a means of adding part of the excess sludge 15 and part of the RO concentrate and a means of adding compounds containing nitrogen and phosphorus components. The uptake of excess sludge (activated sludge), RO concentrate and nitrogen, phosphorus and other components as nutrients activates the anaerobic microorganisms in the anoxic tank 4 and facilitates the anaerobic biological treatment of organic compounds.).
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powell (WO 2010060016).
Per claim 1, Powell teaches a liquid waste treatment system (abstract, Methods and apparatuses for treatment of contaminated liquid are provided including an integrated ultra-filtration and clarification apparatus,), the system comprising:
an ultra-filtration stage (20) comprising:
an ultra-filtration filter (64; Figs. 1, 2; page 9, line 11, Disposed within the casing 54 is a plurality of ultra-filtration filters 64.) configured to separate the liquid waste into a first permeate (page 8, line15, Treated liquid from the integrated apparatus 20 is evacuated through line 26,) and a first concentrate (page 8, line 20, Sludge/solids can be removed from the integrated apparatus 20 through drain line 33), and
a diffuser (90) positioned at an inlet to the ultra-filtration filter (Fig. 2, page 10, lines 25-29, As also shown in Figure 2, a source of air can be provided through air line 42 along with a plurality of air nozzles 90 that provide a flow of air along with the clarified liquid through the filters. Depending upon the type of ultra-filtration filters used, some of the filters perform better when a stream of air is also introduced simultaneously with the liquid.), the diffuser connected to an air blower (44) and configured to introduce air into the liquid waste (page 8, lines 23-25, Depending upon the type of ultra-filtration filters used, a source of air can be provided to the filters as by air line 42 in which air is forced into the integrated apparatus 20 as by blower 44 which draws air through at least one filter 46.) to inherently reduce the density of the liquid waste (i.e., since air has a much lower density than water) and to generate a crossflow within the ultra-filtration filter (i.e., since air will travel upward in the water due to the air having a lower density relative to the water and water will travel laterally from the concentrate side of the membrane to the permeate side of the membrane); and
a reverse osmosis stage (30; page 8, lines 15-17, Treated liquid from the integrated apparatus 20 is evacuated through line 26, as aided by vacuum pump 28 which then conveys the treated liquid to a downstream treatment unit, such as a reverse osmosis unit 30.) configured to receive the first permeate from the ultra-filtration stage (Fig. 1, via line 26) and separate the first permeate into a second permeate (page 13, lines 17-18, The treated permeate water from the reverse osmosis step can then be returned to the textile die machine as fresh water.) and a second concentrate (page 13, lines 18-19, For the rejected water from the reverse osmosis process, this rejected water at block 114 includes water with salt, and this rejected water can also be reused in the textile die process.), the second permeate being a non-potable water for use or re-use (page 13, lines 17-18, The treated permeate water from the reverse osmosis step can then be returned to the textile die machine as fresh water.).
Per claim 4, regarding wherein the liquid waste comprises at least one of urine, feces, rinse water, and trace toilet incidentals, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 5, regarding wherein the liquid waste is a clarified liquid received from a buffer tank system it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). The examiner notes that that applicant does not positively recite that a buffer tank system of part of the instant water treatment system.
Per claim 6, regarding wherein the second permeate discharged as non-potable water for use or re-use meets at least one of: chemical oxygen demand (COD) ≤ 50 mg/L; total suspended solids (TSS) ≤ 10 mg/L; total Nitrogen (N) > 70% reduction relative to the total N in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; total Phosphorus (P) > 80% reduction relative to the total P in the liquid waste received into the ultra-filtration stage; and E. coli ≤ 100 per L, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 7, regarding wherein the ultra-filtration stage operates at a first pressure and the reverse osmosis stages operate at a second pressure, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation or a limitation of intended use that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 8, wherein the reverse osmosis stage operates at a high pressure, it is submitted that the recitation is a process limitation or a limitation of intended use that fails to impose additional structure on the system of Tsuda. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, it is noted that the RO stage inherently operates at a pressure, as broadly interpreted by the examiner.
Per claim 11, Powell teaches a method for treatment of liquid waste (abstract, Methods and apparatuses for treatment of contaminated liquid are provided including an integrated ultra-filtration and clarification apparatus,), the method comprising:
blowing air into a liquid waste to inherently reduce the density of the liquid waste (i.e., since air has a much lower density than water) and to generate a crossflow within the ultra-filtration filter (i.e., since air will travel upward in the water due to the air having a lower density relative to the water and water will travel laterally from the concentrate side of the membrane to the permeate side of the membrane);
filtering the liquid waste in an ultra-filtration stage (20; 64; Figs. 1, 2; page 9, line 11, Disposed within the casing 54 is a plurality of ultra-filtration filters 64.) to separate a first permeate (page 8, line15, Treated liquid from the integrated apparatus 20 is evacuated through line 26,) and a first concentrate (page 8, line 20, Sludge/solids can be removed from the integrated apparatus 20 through drain line 33);
discharging the first concentrate (via line 33; Fig. 33);
filtering the first permeate in a reverse osmosis stage (30; page 8, lines 15-17, Treated liquid from the integrated apparatus 20 is evacuated through line 26, as aided by vacuum pump 28 which then conveys the treated liquid to a downstream treatment unit, such as a reverse osmosis unit 30.) to separate a second permeate (page 13, lines 17-18, The treated permeate water from the reverse osmosis step can then be returned to the textile die machine as fresh water.) and a second concentrate (page 13, lines 18-19, For the rejected water from the reverse osmosis process, this rejected water at block 114 includes water with salt, and this rejected water can also be reused in the textile die process.); and
discharging the second permeate as a useable water (page 13, lines 17-18, The treated permeate water from the reverse osmosis step can then be returned to the textile die machine as fresh water.).
Per claim 17, wherein the liquid waste is a clarified liquid received from a functional equivalent of a buffer tank system (page 3, lines 20-22, In accordance with the present invention, a method and apparatus for treatment of contaminated liquids is provided in which a combined ultra-filtration and clarifier apparatus is used as a pre-treatment step).
Per claim 18, wherein discharging the first concentrate comprises discharging the first concentrate to a system (36) for separation of solid waste in concentrate (page 8, lines 20-22, Sludge/solids can be removed from the integrated apparatus 20 through drain line 33 as controlled by drain valve 34. The sludge/solid can be further treated in another treatment step, such as use of a clarifier or filter press 36.).
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.
Claims 2-3, 10, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (US 2015/0021264) or Powell (WO 2010/060016) in view of Yeo et al. (KR 20130061062).
Per claim 2, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses wherein:
the ultra-filtration stage comprises a reservoir tank and a permeate pump;
the reverse osmosis stage comprises a permeate tank and a high-pressure pump.
Yeo et al., also directed a liquid wase treatment system (Abstract, A reverse osmosis desalination system and an operating method of the same are provided to prevent the formation of fouling and damage to separating membranes in a seawater desalination plant.), disclose wherein:
an ultra-filtration stage (30; page 4, In addition, the reverse osmosis seawater desalination system according to an embodiment of the present invention is the treated water from the UF separation membrane 30…) comprises a reservoir tank (60) and a permeate pump (42);
a reverse osmosis stage (40, 50; page 4, According to the UF filtrate circulating equipment, and the RO production water circulation facility to recycle the RO production water from the RO production water storage tank 70 to the SWRO separator 40 and the BWRO separator 50 and the pump for each process according to the real-time power plan It may include a control unit 100 for selectively operating the on / off control, the circulation of the UF filtered water and the circulation of RO production water.) comprises a permeate tank (70) and a “high-pressure” pump (52; page 4, Filtrate water is produced from the SWRO pressurized pump 42 and the SWRO separator 40 by receiving raw water from the UF filtered water storage tank 60, and the SWRO filtered water is filtered again from the BWRO pressurized pump 52 and the BWRO separator 50.) in order to, for example, store and transport permeate, as desired.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the system of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises wherein: the ultra-filtration stage comprises a reservoir tank and a permeate pump; the reverse osmosis stage comprises a permeate tank and a high-pressure pump in order to, for example, store and transport permeate, as desired.
Per claim 3, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses wherein the reverse osmosis stage further comprises a recirculation conduit configured to deliver the second concentrate to the reservoir tank.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process design to modify the system of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises wherein the reverse osmosis stage further comprises a recirculation conduit configured to deliver the second concentrate to the reservoir tank in order to, for example, subject the concentrate to another round of treatment. It has been held that routine matters of process design do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 10, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses wherein a controller enables automated operation of the ultra-filtration stage and the reverse osmosis stage.
Yeo et al. disclose wherein a controller enables automated operation of an ultra-filtration stage (30; page 4, In addition, the reverse osmosis seawater desalination system according to an embodiment of the present invention is the treated water from the UF separation membrane 30…) and a reverse osmosis stage (40, 50; page 4, According to the UF filtrate circulating equipment, and the RO production water circulation facility to recycle the RO production water from the RO production water storage tank 70 to the SWRO separator 40 and the BWRO separator 50 and the pump for each process according to the real-time power plan It may include a control unit 100 for selectively operating the on / off control, the circulation of the UF filtered water and the circulation of RO production water.) in order to, for example, control the circulation of UF permeate and RO permeate water.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the system of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises wherein a controller enables automated operation of the ultra-filtration stage and the reverse osmosis stage in order to, for example, control the circulation of UF permeate and RO permeate water.
Per claim 12, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses the method further comprising pumping the first permeate to a reservoir tank.
Yeo et al. disclose the method further comprising pumping a first permeate to a reservoir tank (60; page 4, In addition, the reverse osmosis seawater desalination system according to an embodiment of the present invention is the treated water from the UF separation membrane 30, the UF filtered water storage tank 60 for supplying the introduced treated water to the SWRO membrane 40 and Recirculating UF filtrate from RO production water storage tank (70) capable of storing a fixed volume of effluent filtered from BWRO membrane or SWRO membrane (40) (50), and from UF filtrate storage tank (60) to UF membrane (30).) in order to, for example, at least temporarily store the permeate.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises the method further comprising pumping the first permeate to a reservoir tank in order to, for example, at least temporarily store the permeate.
Per claim 13, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell explicitly discloses the method further comprising pumping the first permeate from the reservoir tank through the reverse osmosis stage at a “high pressure.”
Yeo et al. disclose pumping the first permeate from the reservoir tank (60; page 4, In addition, the reverse osmosis seawater desalination system according to an embodiment of the present invention is the treated water from the UF separation membrane 30, the UF filtered water storage tank 60 for supplying the introduced treated water to the SWRO membrane 40 and Recirculating UF filtrate from RO production water storage tank (70) capable of storing a fixed volume of effluent filtered from BWRO membrane or SWRO membrane (40) (50), and from UF filtrate storage tank (60) to UF membrane (30).) through the reverse osmosis stage (40, 50) at a “high pressure” (page 4, Filtrate water is produced from the SWRO pressurized pump 42 and the SWRO separator 40 by receiving raw water from the UF filtered water storage tank 60, and the SWRO filtered water is filtered again from the BWRO pressurized pump 52 and the BWRO separator 50.) in order to, for example, subject the permeate to another round of filtration.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the system of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises the method further comprising pumping the first permeate from the reservoir tank through the reverse osmosis stage at a “high pressure” in order to, for example, subject the permeate to another round of filtration.
Per claim 19, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses wherein filtering the first permeate in the reverse osmosis stage comprises receiving the first permeate in a reservoir tank and recirculating the second concentrate.
Yeo et al. discloses wherein filtering the first permeate in the reverse osmosis stage comprises receiving a first permeate in a reservoir tank (60; page 4, In addition, the reverse osmosis seawater desalination system according to an embodiment of the present invention is the treated water from the UF separation membrane 30, the UF filtered water storage tank 60 for supplying the introduced treated water to the SWRO membrane 40 and Recirculating UF filtrate from RO production water storage tank (70) capable of storing a fixed volume of effluent filtered from BWRO membrane or SWRO membrane (40) (50), and from UF filtrate storage tank (60) to UF membrane (30).) in order to, for example, at least temporarily store the permeate.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of either Tsuda et al. or Powell such that it comprises the method further comprising pumping the first permeate to a reservoir tank in order to, for example, at least temporarily store the permeate.
It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious to recirculate the second concentrate in order to, for example, subject the concentrate to another round of treatment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (US 2015/0021264) or Powell (WO 2010/060016).
Per claim 9, neither Tsuda et al. nor Powell discloses wherein the diffuser comprises an air stone.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to select an air stone as diffuser depending on the volume of air delivered, anticipated contaminant loading. Further, it is noted that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result derived from using an air stone as opposed to any other type of diffuser or the diffuser of either Tsuda et al. or Powell. Moreover, it has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights