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
Applicant’s election of claims 1-14 and 21-23 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “including controllable valve” but should recite “including a controllable valve.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-10 and 21 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.
Claim 9 recites “ the system according to…” but fails to provide a recitation of the claim upon which it depends. As such, it is unclear the dependency of claim 9.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the filter unit." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yue teaches a water treatment system comprising a rain water collector (2), a water treatment unit (6 8), and a pump (7 13 15) for pumping water from the rain water collector (pumps that move the liquid throughout the system) to the water treatment unit via a water duct (piping connecting elements), wherein the water treatment unit includes: an ultrafiltration unit (8) including a filtering space, a water collecting space and a downstream filtered water outlet, the filtering space and collecting space being separated by a porous wall/ultrafiltration membrane, wherein the filtering space extends between a water inlet port and a water outlet port, capable of supplying water to the filtering space during a water filtering phase and for flushing the filtering space during a flushing phase; wherein the system is capable of feeding flushing water from the filtering space to the rain water collector during a filter flushing phase (the ultra-filtration is connected with the coagulation tank and the pipeline between the ultra-filtration and clean water tank is provided with a valve) (Fig. 1., [0009]-[0019], and [0027]-[0029]).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Yue teaches a water treatment device capable of treating the flushing water via the addition of a water treatment substance/disinfecting drug (Fig. 1., [0009]-[0019], and [0027]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Yue teaches a first return duct capable of returning filtered water to the rainwater collector (the ultra-filtration is connected with the coagulation tank) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, it is submitted that the water treatment device in Yue where the disinfectant is added to tank (10) would be considered upstream of the first return duct according to Fig. 1. It is noted that the system in Yue has many valves and pumps and is capable of providing the flow claimed during its intended use.
Regarding claim 11, the rainwater collector in Yue would be considered a water tank.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS).
Regarding claim 14, it is Examiner’s position that the placement of the various parts in any housing or point of use place would meet the limitations of the claim. However, as it is not explicitly stated, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Yue apparatus wherever needed, such as in houses or buildings.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS). In view of Pollock (US 2002/0162795).
Regarding claim 3, Yue teaches the use of a disinfecting agent as part of a water treatment device but fails to teach the water treatment device is configured to irradiate the water in order to disinfect the water. Pollock teaches a water treatment system where water is treated via filtering and other means and the clean water is stored in a tank/chamber and irradiated in order to disinfect prior to being used to flush the filter/membranes ([0044]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use other known disinfecting means, such as irradiating, in order to disinfect with water in tank (10) with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2014/0166576).
Regarding claims 7-8, Yue teaches the use of pumps to provide the flushing water and thus fails to teach a pressure vessel with its accompanying pressurization pump. Hansen teaches that for flushing system, known ways to provide the flushing fluid would include a pump with a pressure vessel as claimed in its preferred embodiment over a pump alone ([0026]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a pressure vessel and pump as claimed in order to ensure the desired flow of backwashing fluid when needed.
Regarding claim 9, Yue teaches that there are various valves and pumps in the system that control the flow within the system. While one skilled in the art would expect some sort of controller for automating valve and pump control, such a controller is not explicitly stated. However, Hansen teaches that controllers are used to control various valves/pumps/means in the system in order to allow for the desired flows in and out of the various elements of the system when needed ([0167]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a controller to operate the pumps and valves in the system as desired in an automated fashion rather than manual control.
Regarding claim 10, it is submitted that the controller in Hansen controlling the flushing function would also control the pressure vessel and pump in Yue.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 9 above for inclusion of a controller. It is submitted that the Yue disinfectant addition is done via device (14), which would also need some sort of control feature in order to allow for adding disinfectant when needed based on broad system functions/parameters.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS) in view of Hosoya (US 2001/0030161).
Regarding claim 12, Yue teaches that the rainwater is treated and sterilized but fails to teach providing a filter water outlet as claimed. Hosoya teaches that after treating rainwater, the treated and clean rainwater is desirable as a drinking water source so the treatment system is provided with a filtered water outlet and water tap (Fig. 6, [0009], and [0058]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a filtered water outlet and tap as claimed in order to provide desirable drinking water.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS) in view of Premathilake et al. (US 2010/0200484).
Regarding claim 13, Yue teaches the apparatus is used to treat rainwater but fails to teach an inlet provided for providing greywater. Premathilake teaches a system for treating water for use or re-use where different sources of water, such as rainwater or other grey water sources, are combined in a tank prior to treatment ([0014]). It is submitted that such a tank would have to have multiple inlet streams/inlets and would meet the structural limitations recited. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a means to include other greywater sources for treatment thereby providing a means to re-use said greywater.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS) in view of Howell (US 2016/0009568).
Regarding claim 22, Yue fails to teach an aerator as claimed. Howell teaches that after rainwater is collected in a tank, the water can be aerated and injected with ozone ([0037]). One skilled in the art would recognize that aeration would prevent stagnancy in the tank and ozone provides a treatment means to the rainwater prior to downstream treatment. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an aerator as claimed in order to aerate the water thereby decreasing stagnancy risks within the tank.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (CN 211497200 in IDS) in view of Flanagan (US 2010/0263295).
Regarding claim 23, Yue teaches the apparatus being used to treat rainwater but fails to teach how the rainwater is collected. Flanagan teaches that rainwater is collected via a duct system on a building, wherein the duct system includes a valve system that opens and closes the duct thereby providing rainwater to a rainwater collector depending on the open or closed status of the valve (abstract). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Flanagan rainwater collection system as the means to collect rainwater in the Yue rainwater collector with a reasonable expectation of success and allow for capture of the rainwater when desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights