DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 recite several instances of preferential language, such as “inorganic coagulants, preferably inorganic coagulants comprising…” (wherein the language following “preferably” is the preferential language). These limitations render the claim indefinite, as the claim language is unclear whether the preferential options are required to read on the claim or not. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the preferential language is not required to read on the claim.
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokohama et al. (herein referred to as “Yokohama”, US Pat Pub. 2017/0305758).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Yokohama discloses a method of controlling a coagulant dosage in a water treatment system (Abstract; Figure 7; Paragraph [0018]; flocculant and method of controlling charging of flocculant), comprising:
performing measurements indicative of post-precipitation downstream of a joining point at which an untreated first stream, and a second stream with said coagulant are joined, the second stream being provided with a solid-liquid separation unit upstream of the joining point (Figure 7; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0073]; see flocculant charging unit 22 and first water quality measuring unit 15 placed downstream of mixing point 14), and
using said measurements in adjusting the coagulant dosage (Figure 7; Paragraph [0075]; see first water quality measurement unit 15 provides measurements to control unit 18, which adjusts flocculant dosage).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: decreasing the coagulant dosage in the event the post-precipitation occurs or the post-precipitation is increasing (Figure 7; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant dosage is decreased when post-precipitation occurs/levels are below a threshold level).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses wherein the measurements indicative of post-precipitation are turbidity measurements, the method comprising the post-precipitation based on measured difference in turbidity before and after the joining point at which the first and second stream are joined (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0072]; Paragraph [0075]; see first and second water quality measuring unit 15 and 23; measurements are based on turbidity/concentration).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: increasing the coagulant dosage in the event the turbidity of the second stream is greater than the turbidity of the joined stream (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; concentration metric is based on turbidity, flocculant dosage increased upon detection of higher turbidity).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: increasing the coagulant dosage in the event the turbidity of the second stream is greater than the turbidity of the joined stream and the difference in turbidity between the said streams increases (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; coagulant dosage increases if maximum threshold is crossed).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: decreasing the coagulant dosage in the event the turbidity of the joined stream is greater than the turbidity of the second stream (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant dosage is decreased upon detection of a lower detected value of concentration).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: decreasing the coagulant dosage in the event the turbidity of the joined stream is greater than the turbidity of the second stream and the difference in turbidity between the said streams increases (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant may be decreased if second measurement and first measurement are below thresholds).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: increasing the coagulant dosage in the event turbidity measurements in the second stream indicate an increase in turbidity (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant dosage increased upon detection of increased concentration/turbidity).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: increasing the coagulant dosage in the event turbidity measurements in the second stream indicate an increase in turbidity (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant dosage increased upon detection of increased concentration/turbidity); and
decreasing the coagulant dosage in the event the post-precipitation occurs or increases (Figures 2-3; Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant is decreased upon detection of quality levels below certain predetermined thresholds).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: measuring a concentration of dissolved impurities in incoming water (Paragraph [0044]; see at least silt density index value);
switching on coagulant dosing when the concentration exceeds a predetermined limit (Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; flocculant added when threshold value is above predetermined limit); and
stopping dosing when the concentration returns below the limit (Paragraph [0075]; see that dosing stops or is decreased upon the value being below predetermined limit).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 11, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama discloses wherein said measuring a concentration of dissolved impurities comprises measuring concentration (Paragraph [0044]; see that silt density index value is concentration measurement). Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 1, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses applying a polymer dosage to the second stream when the coagulant dosing is on (Paragraph [0073]; flocculant may be polymer based).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: removing suspended solids from the untreated first stream in a solid-liquid separation unit or step (Figure 7; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0048]; Paragraph [0051]; Paragraph [0077]; see filtered water mixing unit 14).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising: measuring a difference in turbidity between outlets of the first and second streams; and using the said measured difference in determining the post-precipitation (Figure 7; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0048]; Paragraph [0051]; Paragraph [0075]; Paragraph [0077]; see measurement of turbidity/concentration and difference in quality measurement locations; change in indices may be considered in later determinations).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 1, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses wherein the water treatment system is a wastewater treatment system (Paragraph [0034]; see at least industrial wastewater).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 1, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses wherein the provided method is a method for a tertiary wastewater treatment phase in a wastewater treatment system (Figure 7; Paragraph [0076]; see reverse osmosis membrane that creates permeable water).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Claim 1, upon which Claim 18 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses wherein said coagulant can at least be ferric chloride (Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 1, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama discloses an apparatus (Abstract; water treatment apparatus), comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 7; Paragraph [0049]; Paragraph [0075]; controller/control unit 18); and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (Figure 7; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0049]; Paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0075]; controller 18 performs functions of Yokohama/method of instant Claim 1).
Regarding instant Claim 20, Claim 1, upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses a computer program comprising computer executable program code which when executed by at least one processor causes an operation to perform the method of claim 1 (Figure 7; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0049]; Paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0075]; controller 18 performs functions of Yokohama/method of instant Claim 1).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokohama et al. (herein referred to as “Yokohama”, US Pat Pub. 2017/0305758) in view of Konishi et al. (herein referred to as “Konishi”, US Pat Pub. 2014/0277746).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Yokohama further discloses comprising:
performing a turbidity measurement downstream of the solid-liquid separation unit in the second stream to obtain the turbidity of the second stream (Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; second water quality measuring unit 23), see that silt density is a measure of concentration/turbidity);
performing a turbidity measurement downstream of the point at which the first stream and the second stream are joined to obtain the turbidity of the joined stream (Figure 7; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0075]; first water quality measuring unit 15).
However, the reference is silent on adjusting the coagulant dosage based on a difference between the turbidity of the joined stream and the turbidity of the second stream or based on a change in the said difference.
Konishi discloses a chemical injection control method and chemical injection controller in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing and controlling coagulant/flocculant to a water undergoing treatment (Abstract; Paragraph [0004]; Paragraph [0005]). Konishi further discloses the adjustment of a coagulant dosage based on a difference between the turbidity of the joined stream and the turbidity of the second stream or based on a change in the said difference in order to provide a more discrete control of the coagulant/flocculant based on measured values before and after treatment (Paragraph [0010]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0083]; see raw and treated water quality indices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjustment of the coagulant dosage of Yokohama by further adjusting the a coagulant dosage based on a difference between the turbidity of the joined stream and the turbidity of the second stream or based on a change in the said difference as taught by Konishi because Konishi discloses doing so provides a more discrete control of the coagulant/flocculant based on measured values before and after treatment (Konishi, Paragraph [0010]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0083]; see raw and treated water quality indices).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, discloses an detailed water purifier that provides turbidity measurements upstream and downstream of membrane treatment (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraph [0033]; Paragraph [0034]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights