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
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/3/26.
Applicant has not formally traversed the restriction requirement, but made arguments against the requirement. These are not persuasive, as can be seen in the art rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 claim limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
92
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is unclear. The claim reads and applicant appears to argue that the positions of Unit-I and Unit-II can be interchanged. However, the disclosure does not show how it is done. Applicant’s drawings are difficult to read – tiny prints and faded lines. The second feed line 2B and FL apparently is for the regeneration flow. There is no disclosure that would make Unit-II upstream of Unit-I.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyberg (US 5,788,826) in view of CN 113398759 A (CN-759) and CN 113402079 A (CN-079.)
Claims are directed to an apparatus for water treatment, which is a combination of series and parallel-connected electrochemical cells with a prefilter and a post carbon filter. Claim 1 recites the structure of the electrochemical cell, how they are plumbed to obtain the series and parallel connections, and the added pre and post filers. Nyberg is cited by the applicant in the disclosure in the paragraph linking pages 6 and 7. Applicant’s figures 2-4 are identical to the corresponding figures in Nyberg. Therefore the structure of the electrochemical cells recited are taught by Nyberg. Nyberg does teach series and parallel arrangements in example 3, column 26. Fig. 9 shows two cells in parallel; fig. 10 shows three in parallel, of which one is being regenerated. Example 3 teaches that each of the two cells in the parallel arrangement has three spiral cells/cartridges in series.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
980
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s claim 1, as now drafted, has one of EC-I or EC-II under regeneration according to the last ‘wherein’ clause. This means that at any time the system works with two cells in series. One of EC-I and EC-II, and Unit-II, because the other of EC-I and EC-II would be undergoing regeneration. Nyberg, in each of the two units in Fig. 9, has 3 cells in series in example 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nyberg, fig. 10, also teaches having one unit under regeneration while other units are deionizing, but does not show the detailed plumbing for it. Nyberg also does not teach the pre- and post-filers. CN-079 teaches the two-cell parallel arrangement, with the plumbing required for regeneration, as well as the pre and post (carbon) filters. See figure 5 copied herein.
PNG
media_image4.png
257
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since applicant cites this reference in page 7 of the disclosure, applicant is well-aware of the teaching of this reference. It would have been obvious to use the teaching of CN-079 in the teaching of Nyberg, since Nyberg fails to provide the details. Also, since Nyberg is primarily teaching about deionization, providing pre and post filters to remove non-ionic and organic matter from the water to purify the water would have been prima facie obvious, as taught by CN-079.
Finally, having a series cascade arrangement (well-known in chemical engineering unit operations) for deionization to achieve the degree of deionization required, while reducing the unit size as the process water volume decreases, would also have been prima facie obvious. This is considering applicant’s fig. 1, discounting the last wherein clause of claim1. See CN-759, figure 5 (copied herein,) which teaches such a staged cascade of parallel and series arrangement for deionization. See page 14/40 of the reference with translation included in the 892.
PNG
media_image5.png
804
676
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CN-579 also teaches regeneration of the electrochemical cells as and when required.
MPEP 2143: Rationales that support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
Claims 2-11 recite the features of the electrochemical cell, which are taught by Nyberg, see the claims of Nyberg. Again, applicant’s disclosure indicate that applicant uses teaching of Nyberg in their invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
70
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This argument is unclear. The disclosure and the claims only show a unit-I (just a name) having two cells (EC-I and EC-II) in parallel, each cell being independently operable and regenerable. Nyberg teaches that.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, CN-079 was used to show the plumbing required and the pre and post filters. CN- 759 teaches the general tapered cascade arrangement well-known in chemical engineering unit operations as applied to electrochemical cells.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights