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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, 25, drawn to a method of pretreating raw surface water and system for water treatment, classified in C02F 1/66 .
II. Claims 18-24, drawn to a method for water treatment, classified in C02F 1/004, C02F 1/444,C02F 1/442.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed in Claims 1-17 filtering is not required to pretreat raw water, and Claims 18-24 required filtering of the pretreated raw surface water to transform the raw water to usable water. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case Claim 25 did not mention filtering process downstream of the system for water treatment of Claims 18-24.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restrictions were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different
classification.
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized
divergent subject matter.
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching for different
classes/subclasses or electronic resources or employing different search queries).
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another
invention.
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101
and/or 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicants traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Derion Reid on 8/27/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention I, claims 1-17, and 25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-24 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 6-7, 11-14 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 “about” in claims 6-7, 11-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the carbon dioxide is fed into the volume of the raw surface water at a dosage of from about 5 mg/L to about 100 mg/L based on the volume of the raw surface water, the range of 5 mg/L to 100 mg/L has been rendered indefinite by the use of “about”. For the purpose of examination, the dosage range will be read as “from 5 mg/L to 100 mg/L”.
Regarding Claim 7, the pH of the raw water is lowered to a level ranging from about 5.5 to about 7.5, the pH range of 5.5 to 7.5 has been rendered indefinite by the use of “about”. For the purpose of examination, the pH range will be read as “from 5.5 to 7.5”.
Regarding Claim 11, the coagulant is fed into the volume of the raw surface water sat a dosage of from about 0.1mg/L to about 150 mg/L based on the volume of the raw surface water, the dosage range from 0.1 mg/L to 150 mg/L has been rendered indefinite by the use of “about”. For the purpose of examination, the dosage range will read “0.1 mg/L to 150 mg/L”.
Regarding Claim 12, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 50:1 to about 1:10, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide range from 50:1 to 1:10 has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “about”. For the purpose of examination, the ratio will read “from 50:1 to 1:10”.
Regarding Claim 13, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 30:1 to about 1:5, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide range from 30:1 to 1:5 has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “about”. For the purpose of examination, the ratio will read “from 30:1 to 1:5”.
Regarding Claim 14, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 20:1 to about 1:1, the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide range from 30:1 to 1:5 has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “about”. For the purpose of examination, the ratio will read “from 20:1 to 1:1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 15-17, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burnett et al. (US Patent No. 9,751,784 B2) (Burnett) .
Regarding Claim 1, Burnett teaches a method of pretreating raw surface water (C8/L10-15, Claim 1, “a method for treating water”), comprising: dosing carbon dioxide into a volume of the raw surface water (C6/L30-35 “a flow 310 of carbonic acid or carbon dioxide gas into water 305” ), wherein at least part of the carbon dioxide lowers the pH of the raw surface water (C8/L12-15, Claim 1, “allowing at least part of the carbonic acid to lower the pH of the water”); feeding one or more coagulants into the volume of the raw surface water (C8/L14-20, Claim 1, “adding calcium hydroxide to the water after said allowing at least part of the carbonic acid to lower the pH of the water”, calcium hydroxide is known in the art to be a common coagulant in water and waste water); and decreasing turbidity of the raw surface water by further dissolving at least the coagulant from said feeding(C8/L18-20, Claim 1, “decreasing the turbidity of the water by further dissolving at least calcium hydroxide from said adding”).
Regarding Claim 3, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon dioxide is dosed into volume of the raw surface water via injecting the carbon dioxide into the volume of the raw surface water using an inlet flow channel (C3/L55-62, “a first channel providing a flow of water; a second channel that intersects the first channel and provides a flow of carbonic acid into the flow of water of the first channel”, “injecting” means introduce (something) into a passage, cavity, or solid material, the second channel introduce a flow of carbonic acid into the flow of water will read on “injection” ).
Regarding Claim 15, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the decreasing step further comprises applying mechanical agitation by positioning at least one impeller (C6/L5-10, “impeller 200 as may be used with the present invention to provide mechanical agitation”) within a flow path of the raw surface water at a location along the flow path that is after a location where feeding the one or more coagulants occurs, and rotating the at least one impeller with a speed of rotation sufficient to decrease the turbidity of the raw surface water (C8/L22-28, Claim 1, “applying mechanical agitation by positioning at least one impeller within a flow path of the water at a location along the flow path that is after said adding calcium hydroxide, and rotating the at least one impeller with a speed of rotation sufficient to decrease the turbidity of the water”).
Regarding Claim 16, Burnett teaches the method of claim 15, wherein said step of applying mechanical agitation comprises rotating a device within the volume of the raw surface water and the carbon dioxide so as to shear the volume of the raw surface water at a rate sufficient to lower the turbidity (Claim 26, “step of decreasing comprising mechanical agitation of the water with a device that is rotated or moved relative to the water and calcium hydroxide so as to shear the water at a rate sufficient to lower the turbidity”, because the agitator is positioned downstream of both the Carbon Dioxide, and the Coagulant feed, the mechanical will rotate or moved relative to water, carbon dioxide and coagulants).
Regarding Claim 17, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the decreasing step further comprises applying a shear static mixer (impeller 200) to the raw surface water (¶0043, “mechanical agitation refers to mixing using an impeller or other device that is rotated or moved through the water so as to shear the water, preferably at high rate of shear”, the impeller Burnett teaches is capable of operating as a static mixer where the function is used to shear water, hence impeller read on the claimed shear static mixer).
Regarding Claim 25, Burnett teaches a system for water treatment (C6/L25-40, Fig.3, an apparatus 300), comprising: a first channel (C6/L25-40, Fig.3, first channel 335) providing a flow of water from a raw surface water (C6/L25-40, Fig.3, a flow of water 305); a second channel that intersects said first channel and provides a flow of carbon dioxide into the flow of the raw water of said first channel (C6/L25-40, Fig.3, “a second channel 325 intersects first channel 335 and provides a flow 310 of carbonic acid or carbon dioxide gas into water 305) ; a third channel intersecting said first channel to provide a flow of one or more coagulants into the flow of the raw water provided by first channel (C6/L25-40, Fig.3, “a third channel 330 also intersects first channel 335 and provide a flow 315 of calcium hydroxide (in the form of slake lime slurry) into the flow of water 305 in the first channel), said second channel intersecting downstream of the intersection of said second channel and said first channel (Fig.3, third channel 330 is shown to be downstream of second channel 325, both intersects with first channel 335); and an agitator positioned downstream of the intersection of said third channel and said first channel C6/L45-47, Fig. 3, “as flow 305 continues downstream, it encounters impeller 200”, C6/L6-10, “impeller 200 may be used with the present invention to provide mechanical agitation”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett et al. (US Patent No. 9,751,784 B2) (Burnett), and further in view of Funahashi et al. (US Patent No. 5,391,302) (Funahashi).
Regarding Claim 2, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the raw surface water comprises water drawn from wastewater.
Burnett does not teach the water drawn from a creek, lake, river, reservoir, stream, wetland, or a combination thereof.
Funahashi teaches the raw surface water comprises water drawn from a creek, lake, river, reservoir, stream, wetland, or a combination thereof (C1/L40-45, “The production of a slaked lime aqueous solution to be added to city water used for improving city water in the present invention”, because “city water” are drawn from reservoirs, lake, river, “city water” will read on the claim).
Burnett and Funahashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wastewater treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified where Burnett drawn wastewater from to incorporate the teachings of Funahashi to further include city water to prevent corrosion of city water pipe, which is also in need of improving of pH level (Funahashi, C1/L5-8).
Regarding Claim 4, Burnett teaches the method of claim 3, wherein an inline gas diffuser (Fig. 3, second channel 325) is utilized to inject carbon dioxide (flow of Carbonic acid 310) into the volume of the raw surface water (water 305).
Burnett teaches the means to inject carbon dioxide into the volume of the raw surface water, however Burnett does not teach the means to be “an inline gas diffuser”.
Funahashi teaches an inline gas diffuser (Fig. 1, line mixer 9) is utilized to inject carbon dioxide into the volume of the raw surface water (C4/L1-10, “it is preferable to dissolve carbon dioxide gas in water by force using the line mixer 9”).
Regarding Claim 5, Burnett teaches the method of claim 3, wherein a pressurized carrier (Fig. 3, second channel 325) is utilized to inject the carbon dioxide (flow of Carbonic acid 310) into the volume of the raw surface water (water 305).
Burnett teaches the means to inject carbon dioxide into the volume of the raw surface water, however Burnett does not teach the means to be “a pressurized carrier”.
Funahashi teaches a pressurized carrier (Fig. 1, line mixer 9)is utilized to inject the carbon dioxide into the volume of the raw surface water (C4/L1-10, “it is preferable to dissolve carbon dioxide gas in water by force using the line mixer 9 under pressure, preferably under pressure of 2 to 3 kg/cm2” because the line mixer is being put under pressure, it reads on the limitation of “a pressurized carrier”).
Burnett and Funahashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wastewater treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burnett’s feed flow to incorporate the teachings of Funahashi and utilize a pressurized inline mixer to diffuse Carbon Dioxide gas into water because the higher the carbonic acid concentration of the carbonic acid-containing water is, the more preferable it is, and a carbonic acid aqueous solution not less than 100 ppm,… more desirably not less than 400 ppm is used (Funahashi C3/L65 – C4/L4).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Burnett and Funahashi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon dioxide is fed into the volume of the raw surface water at a dosage of from about 5 mg/L to about 100 mg/L based on the volume of the raw surface water (Funahashi, C3/L65 – C4/L10, “the higher the carbonic acid concentration of the carbonic acid-containing water is, the more preferable it is, and a carbonic acid aqueous solution not less than 100ppm”, Funahashi teaches the solution to be 100 ppm which is equivalent to 100mg/L for water, this falls within the claim range of about 5mg/L to about 100mg/L).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Burnett and Funahashi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the raw surface water is lowered to a level ranging from about 5.5 to 7.5 (C4/L45-56, “An experiment was conducted using an apparatus as shown in Fig.1 consisting of a slaked lime dissolving vessel 250…, city water, which was used for this experiment had…, pH of 6.2” Funahashi teaches the method where the results of the experiment shows pH of 6.2 which falls within the claim range from about 5.5 to 7.5).
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett et al. (US Patent No. 9,751,784 B2) (Burnett), and further in view of Kutsumi (JP 2018149499).
Regarding Claim 8, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1.
Burnett does not teach the coagulant comprises a metal salt, and inorganic polymeric material, or a combination thereof.
Kutsumi teaches the coagulant comprises a metal salt, and inorganic polymeric material, or a combination thereof (¶0005, “an immobilizing agent characterized by comprising: a metal salt of an inorganic acid that acts as an oxidizing agent; and an inorganic polymer flocculant”, Kutsumi teaches an agent for coagulants, which reads on the claimed invention).
Burnett and Kutsumi are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wastewater treatment and usage of coagulants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coagulant of Burnett by incorporating the metal salt of Kutsumi because metal salts can be sufficiently prevented from being precipitated as insoluble metals and the particles to be treated can be finely separated (Kutsumi, ¶0023).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Burnett and Kutsumi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the metal salt comprises ferrous salt, copper salt, magnesium salt, or a combination thereof (Kutsumi, ¶0024, “it is preferable to select and use a metal salt with high oxidizing properties as the metal salt of such inorganic acid”, in ¶0024 Kutsumi teaches examples of metal salts one of which comprises ferrous sulfate, and “one of these can be use alone in combination of two or more”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Burnett and Kutsumi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the inorganic polymeric material comprises polyaluminum chloride (PACL), polyferric sulfate (PFS), polyacrylamide (PAM) or a combination thereof (Kutsumi, ¶0015, “the inorganic polymer flocculant is at least one of polyferrous sulfate, polyferric sulfate, and polyaluminum chloride”).
Regarding Claim 12, Burnett and Kutsumi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 50:1 to about 1:10 (Kutsumi, ¶0029, “the content of such inorganic acids is not particularly limited, but is preferably about 5% to 15% by weight” and ¶0041, “the content of such inorganic polymer flocculants is preferably about 30% to 50% by weight”, based on the weight percentage Kutsumi teaches, the ratio of coagulant to carbon dioxide which is an inorganic acid is 6:1 to 3:1, which falls in the claimed range of about 50:1 to about 1:10).
Regarding Claim 13, Burnett and Kutsumi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 30:1 to about 1:5 (Kutsumi, ¶0029, “the content of such inorganic acids is not particularly limited, but is preferably about 5% to 15% by weight” and ¶0041, “the content of such inorganic polymer flocculants is preferably about 30% to 50% by weight”, based on the weight percentage Kutsumi teaches, the ratio of coagulant to carbon dioxide which is an inorganic acid is 6:1 to 3:1, which falls in the claimed range of about 30:1 to about 1:5).
Regarding Claim 14, Burnett and Kutsumi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the coagulant to carbon dioxide ranges from about 20:1 to about 1:1 (Kutsumi, ¶0029, “the content of such inorganic acids is not particularly limited, but is preferably about 5% to 15% by weight” and ¶0041, “the content of such inorganic polymer flocculants is preferably about 30% to 50% by weight”, based on the weight percentage Kutsumi teaches, the ratio of coagulant to carbon dioxide which is an inorganic acid is 6:1 to 3:1, which falls in the claimed range of about 20:1 to about 1:1).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett et al. (US Patent No. 9,751,784 B2) (Burnett), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20230278898) (Zhang).
Regarding Claim 11, Burnett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the coagulant is fed into the volume of the raw surface water sat a dosage of 5wt% of coagulant
Burnett does not teach the dosage from about 0.1 mg/L to about 150 mg/L based on the volume of the raw surface water.
Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the coagulant is fed into the volume of the raw surface water sat a dosage of from about 0.1 mg/L to about 150 mg/L based on the volume of the raw surface water (¶0015, “adding the polyzirconium coagulant into the water body at a dose of 3-100mg/L to remove the turbidity and the organic matter in the water body”, Zhang teaches the dose of 3-100mg/L which falls within the claimed range of about 0.1mg/L to about 150mg/L ).
Burnett and Zhang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wastewater treatment and usage of inorganic salt, inorganic acid, and inorganic polymeric material for coagulants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified dosage of Burnett to effectively targeting to remove target pollutants, and to reduce dosage while improving the contamination removing efficiency (Zhang, ¶0018).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH HUYNH NGOC BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-5588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/A.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights