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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (US PG Pub 2018/0282194), in view of Patil (US PG Pub 2018/0208484).
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Williamson teaches a method and system used to purify water that removes or reduces volatile organic compounds, calcium carbonate, cyanuric acid, and sodium bicarbonate from water to acceptable levels for a pool or spa (abstract, 0001-0016, recreational water), using activated carbon and anion exchange resin (0017-0020). Williamson teaches activated charcoal or carbon and filters in stages, but does not explicitly teach surface modified activated carbon, or a mixture or composition comprising the ion exchange material and activated carbon.
Williamson teaches pool water becomes contaminated with compounds such as heavy metals (0018). Patil teaches catalytic activated carbon that provides a single media to remove chloramines, VOC's and heavy metal ions from water, and makes it possible to remove chloramines, VOC, other organic chemical compounds and heavy metals using a single media, allowing judicious use of space in a filter (0001-0028), and a filter containing active carbon and ion exchange resin (a composition). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williamson’s taught method and system to include Patil’s taught activated carbon and combination of filter materials as according to Patil the catalytic activated carbon allows for use at substantial flow rate and judicious use of volume, and to mix the materials as the use of filtration where ion exchange and activated carbon are provides together is known in the art as shown by Patil.
With respect to claims 5 and 20, the composition of claim 1 and method of claim 10 are taught above. Patil teaches the surface-modified activated carbon is a catalytic activated carbon having up to 8% nitrogen (0003).
With respect to claim 6, the composition of claim 1, is taught above. Williamson teaches removal of VOCs (0015-0026, one or more selected from the following: a zeolitic adsorbent, a synthetic zeolitic adsorbent that removes heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, an arsenic absorbent, a phosphate remover, and a VOC remover).
With respect to claim 11, the method of claim 10, is taught above. Williamson teaches water from a pool/spa as discussed above, the treated recreational water is water from a pool, a hot tub/spa, or a water playground).
With respect to claim 18, the method of claim 15, is taught above. Bhimaraja teaches placing the filter into or in communication with the filtration device or system (e.g., an inlet of a filtration device or system such as a skimmer of a pool), (0004, 0023, 0044-0046).
Claims 2-4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (US PG Pub 2018/0282194), in view of Patil (US PG Pub 2018/0208484), in view of Yoshikawa (JP 2008279331 A).
With respect to claims 2-4 and 19, the composition of claim 1 and method of claim 10, are taught above. Williamson teaches the ion exchange system includes any components suitably configured to remove calcium hardness and/or cyanuric acid from the water, and depending on the configuration of the system, configured as needed (0027), and removing CYA using a strong base anion exchange resin and removing 1250 ppm of cyanuric acid (0020), not a weakly basic resin. However, Yoshikawa teaches a simple method of removing an organic halogen compound, such as chlorinated isocyanuric acid compounds, the anion exchange resin is not limited, but includes functional groups with tertiary amines, a styrene type, examples include weakly basic anion exchange resins such as Amberlite IRA96SB (p. 3), styrene divinylbenzene (p. 5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a weakly basic anion exchange resin to remove the cyanuric acid as Williamson teaches the ion exchange system can include any components suitably configured to remove cyanuric acid from the water, and the use of styrene-divinylbenzene type, weakly basic anion exchange resins, comprising tertiary amine functional groups, is known in the art for removal or isocyanuric acid compounds, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (US PG Pub 2018/0282194), in view of Patil (US PG Pub 2018/0208484), alternatively in view of Bhimaraja (US PG Pub US 2020/0222837).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, the combination of Williamson and Patil teaches the limitations of claim 1, Williamson teaches application in pools, spas, (0016), Patil teaches a filter with ion exchange and activated carbon as discussed above, and that the filter may also include other desirable materials, and may include one or more layers of fabric which an retain the media and act as a filtration layer (0025, a porous pouch).
Alternatively, Bhimaraja teaches compositions and methods for filtering water, comprising a filter media, which can include a and a packaging or porous pouch enclosing the media (0004, 0037, 0047-0050), exemplary media include, but are not limited to activated carbon and zeolites (0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the taught combination such that the composition is provided in a pouch, as described by Bhimaraja, as according to Bhimaraja, the pouch may be placed directly into a filtration device or system without the need of taking the filter medium out of the packaging.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the composition of claim 7, is taught above. Patil teaches non-woven fabric (0025, 0037-0041), Alternatively, Bhimaraja teaches a non-woven fabric with pores (0031, 0037), the porous material is a woven material or a non-woven material.
Claims 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (US PG Pub 2018/0282194), in view of Patil (US PG Pub 2018/0208484), alternatively in view of Bhimaraja (US PG Pub US 2020/0222837), in view of Watson (US 4,184,702).
With respect to claims 9 and 17, the composition of claim 7, is taught above. Patil teaches non-woven fabric (0025, 0037-0041), Alternatively, Bhimaraja teaches a non-woven fabric with pores and materials such as fabric (e.g., cotton, linen, paper, etc., (0031, 0037), the pouch of the pouch being a non-woven pouch. While the taught combination does not explicitly teach felt, the use of felted materials in pool filtration is known in the art as shown by Watson, Watson teaches swimming pool filtration (C3/L60-C4/L16), and a felted filter medium covering (C11/L7-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a felted fabric as felted fabrics are known in the art for covering pool filtration media and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Claims 12- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (US PG Pub 2018/0282194), in view of Patil (US PG Pub 2018/0208484) in view of Aukema (US PG Pub 2022/0411301).
With respect to claims 12-14, the method of claim 10, is taught above. Williamson maintaining acceptable levels for a pool or spa (abstract, 0001-0016, 0024), pools are treated with chlorine and cyanuric acid, and the purification system may have automatic controls, sensors, and that parameters including chlorine level and cyanuric acid levels may be entered (0004, 0020, 0032), but is silent as to the specific concentrations.
Aukema teaches reducing cyanuric acid concentrations in aqueous liquids, such as chlorinated swimming pool water, hypochlorite concentration ranges typically used in swimming pool disinfection processes are about 1 ppm to about 5 ppm (0065-0065, (see instant specification 0076, disclosing free available chlorine (hypochlorite))), and the accepted CYA working range is generally above 40 ppm and below 100 ppm, i.e., due to the equilibrium between cyanuric acid and hypochlorite resulting in sequestration of most reactive (free) chlorine species (i.e., chlorine “lock”) at high cyanuric acid concentrations, and the CDC recommends if the cyanuric acid concentration is within 1-15 ppm, use unstabilized chlorine to (i) raise the free chlorine concentration to 20 ppm and maintain it for 28 hours; or (ii) raise the free chlorine concentration to 30 ppm and maintain it for 18 hours, (0005-0008), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the CYA levels of the pool such that the treated recreational water has a cyanuric acid concentration greater than 50 ppm, as these ranges are the generally accepted working ranges for chlorine and CYA according to Aukema.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571 270-7872. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights