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 .
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 2, 4 and 7-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a flow of water” in line 5, and the claim also recites “in particular a rain and/or a nebulization of water” in lines 5-6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower limitation is considered exemplary.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the collection of water" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]] collection of water".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the injection of water" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]] injection of water".
Claim 2 is considered vague and indefinite because it recites “a flow of water” in line 18. It is unclear if “a flow of water” refers to the flow of water recited in line 5 or a different flow of water. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite “[[a]]the flow of water” and derive antecedence from line 5 of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said water recirculation system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to depend from claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the introduction of a predetermined amount of water" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]an introduction of a predetermined amount of water".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the production of mineralized water” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a production of mineralized water”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “a flow of water” in line 9, and the claim also recites “in particular a rain and/or a nebulization of water” in lines 9-10 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower limitation is considered exemplary.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as depending from a rejected base 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 –
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, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (BR PI0400726-3).
Per claim 1, Chan et al. teach a device for water treatment, comprising:
a container (104, 106) configured for containing, in use, a predetermined amount of water to mineralize (page 7, A first source of water 100 supplying water through one of the supply line 102 for one first and second tanks of mixture 104, 106.);
at least a supply input for a mineralizing substance to solubilize in said
water (page 7, A proper amount of salt containing magnesium, preferably a carbonate of magnesium hydroxide, is added to the water in the tanks 104, 106 and is mixed with the water.);
a mineral solubilisation gas supplying pipe (116), opening itself in said container and configured for supplying a gas within said water (page 8, The carbon dioxide is supplied from a one to a tank of carbon dioxide 112. The a carbon dioxide from the tank 112 is passed through the one ñltro 114 and is supplied through a line of the 116 for the supply tanks 104, 106.), said gas being destined to allow a solubilisation of said mineralizing substance in water (page 4, …adding one or more compounds containing carbonate or the stock or the stream of diluted solution; in which the _ the carbon dioxide is dissolved in solution and/or in the current, a diluted solution, and mineral drinking water containing magnesium is continuously discharged by process.);
the device comprising at least an operating configuration of mineralization, wherein the container is pressurized through the mineral solubilisation gas supplied within said container, and in particular is brought and/or kept at a pressure at least equal to a predefined pressure value, said pressure being higher than the environmental pressure, and wherein the mineralizing substance chemically reacts with said gas determining a mineralization of the water with a solubilized compound (page 8, In one typical example, the a carbon dioxide is added to tanks 104, 106 with a pressure of about three bar. The addition of the carbon dioxide assists in the dissolution containing magnesium salt and in the production of bicarbonate anions. In this way, a stock solution the compound containing magnesium is produced.). The examiner notes that environmental (i.e., atmospheric) pressure is about 1 bar.
Per claim 7, Chan et al. teach a water treatment method, comprising:
[[the]]an introduction of a predetermined amount of water to mineralize in a
Container (104, 106; page 7, A first source of water 100 supplying water through one of the supply line 102 for one first and second tanks of mixture 104, 106.);
an introduction of a mineralizing substance in said water, the introduction taking place through a supply input arranged on said container (page 7, A proper amount of salt containing magnesium, preferably a carbonate of magnesium hydroxide, is added to the water in the tanks 104, 106 and is mixed with the water.);
an introduction in the water contained in said container, through a gas supplying pipe (116) opening itself in said container (page 8, The carbon dioxide is supplied from a one to a tank of carbon dioxide 112. The a carbon dioxide from the tank 112 is passed through the one ñltro 114 and is supplied through a line of the 116 for the supply tanks 104, 106.), of a gas destined to allow a solubilisation of said mineralizing substance in water (page 4, …adding one or more compounds containing carbonate or the stock or the stream of diluted solution; in which the _ the carbon dioxide is dissolved in solution and/or in the current, a diluted solution, and mineral drinking water containing magnesium is continuously discharged by process.);
a step of pressurization of the container through the mineral solubilisation gas supplied within said container, comprising bringing and/or keeping the container at a pressure at least equal to a predefined pressure value, said pressure being higher
than the environmental pressure (page 8, In one typical example, the a carbon dioxide is added to tanks 104, 106 with a pressure of about three bar. The addition of the carbon dioxide assists in the dissolution containing magnesium salt and in the production of bicarbonate anions. In this way, a stock solution the compound containing magnesium is produced.),
a mineralization of the water, determined by a chemical reaction between said gas and said mineralizing substance, said mineralization of the water determining [[the]]a production of mineralized water with a solubilized compound deriving from said chemical reaction between said gas and said mineralizing substance (page 4, …adding one or more compounds containing carbonate or the stock or the stream of diluted solution; in which the _ the carbon dioxide is dissolved in solution and/or in the current, a diluted solution, and mineral drinking water containing magnesium is continuously discharged by process.). The examiner notes that environmental (i.e., atmospheric) pressure is about 1 bar.
Per claim 11, wherein said mineralization gas comprises carbon dioxide (page 8, The carbon dioxide is supplied from a one to a tank of carbon dioxide 112. The a carbon dioxide from the tank 112 is passed through the one ñltro 114 and is supplied through a line of the 116 for the supply tanks 104, 106.), and wherein said mineralizing substance comprises at least one between a calcium compound and a magnesium compound (page 7, A proper amount of salt containing magnesium, preferably a carbonate of magnesium hydroxide, is added to the water in the tanks 104, 106 and is mixed with the water.).
Regarding the limitation of optionally comprising carbonic acid, said step of mineralization being destined to allow the production of water with calcium bicarbonate, it is submitted that as the limitation is optional the applied prior art need not teach the limitation to otherwise read on the claim.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelley et al. (US 2005/0255174).
Per claim 1, Shelley et al. teach a device for water treatment, comprising:
a container (314) configured for containing, in use, a predetermined amount of water to mineralize ([0209] Magnesium carbonate, which may conveniently be in the form of commercially available magnesium carbonate hydroxide pentahydrate (MgCO.sub.3).sub.4.Mg(OH).sub.2.5H.sub.2O is added to the tank 314 through an opening 346 in its top side. The magnesium carbonate may be in powder form or alternatively, it may be in the form of a slurry with water, or else in a concentrated suspension pre-mixed in a mixing tank (not shown).);
at least a supply input (346) for a mineralizing substance to solubilize in said
water ([0209] Magnesium carbonate, which may conveniently be in the form of commercially available magnesium carbonate hydroxide pentahydrate (MgCO.sub.3).sub.4.Mg(OH).sub.2.5H.sub.2O is added to the tank 314 through an opening 346 in its top side. The magnesium carbonate may be in powder form or alternatively, it may be in the form of a slurry with water, or else in a concentrated suspension pre-mixed in a mixing tank (not shown).);
a mineral solubilisation gas supplying pipe (320.1; Fig. 3), opening itself in said container (Fig. 3) and configured for supplying a gas within said water, said gas being destined to allow a solubilisation of said mineralizing substance in water ([0202] The means for dissolving carbon dioxide comprises, in addition to or as an alternative to the aforementioned sparger means 320.1, 320.2, a tube 330 and a helical baffle 332 locatable within the tube 330, and means 334 for disposing the tube 330 in a substantially vertical position.);
the device comprising at least an operating configuration of mineralization, wherein the container is pressurized through the mineral solubilisation gas supplied within said container, and in particular is brought and/or kept at a pressure at least equal to a predefined pressure value, said pressure being higher than the environmental pressure, and wherein the mineralizing substance chemically reacts with said gas determining a mineralization of the water with a solubilized compound ([0026] The method according to these aspects of the invention may include the step of controlling the pressure at an absolute pressure of from about 50 kPa to about 500 kPa.; [0212] The pressure above the liquid surface in the tank 314 is preferably controlled at a level sufficiently high to ensure that carbon dioxide dissolves at a high enough rate for the reaction between magnesium carbonate and the said species to take place at a rate high enough to ensure that the processing time is reduced to a maximum of a few hours, preferably to a maximum of about 4 to 8 hours, more preferably, to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours.). The examiner notes that environmental (i.e., atmospheric) pressure is about 101 kPa.
Per claim 5, wherein said mineralization gas comprises carbon dioxide, and wherein said mineralizing substance comprises at least one between a calcium compound and a magnesium compound ([0212] The pressure above the liquid surface in the tank 314 is preferably controlled at a level sufficiently high to ensure that carbon dioxide dissolves at a high enough rate for the reaction between magnesium carbonate and the said species to take place at a rate high enough to ensure that the processing time is reduced to a maximum of a few hours, preferably to a maximum of about 4 to 8 hours, more preferably, to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours.).
Regarding the limitation of optionally comprising carbonic acid, said step of mineralization being destined to allow the production of water with calcium bicarbonate, it is submitted that as the limitation is optional the applied prior art need not teach the limitation to otherwise read on the claim.
Per claim 7, Shelley et al. teach a water treatment method, comprising:
[[the]]an introduction of a predetermined amount of water to mineralize in a
container (314);
an introduction of a mineralizing substance in said water, the introduction taking place through a supply input arranged on said container ([0209] Magnesium carbonate, which may conveniently be in the form of commercially available magnesium carbonate hydroxide pentahydrate (MgCO.sub.3).sub.4.Mg(OH).sub.2.5H.sub.2O is added to the tank 314 through an opening 346 in its top side. The magnesium carbonate may be in powder form or alternatively, it may be in the form of a slurry with water, or else in a concentrated suspension pre-mixed in a mixing tank (not shown).);
an introduction in the water contained in said container, through a gas supplying pipe (320.1) opening itself in said container (), of a gas destined to allow a solubilisation of said mineralizing substance in water ([0202] The means for dissolving carbon dioxide comprises, in addition to or as an alternative to the aforementioned sparger means 320.1, 320.2, a tube 330 and a helical baffle 332 locatable within the tube 330, and means 334 for disposing the tube 330 in a substantially vertical position.);
a step of pressurization of the container through the mineral solubilisation gas supplied within said container, comprising bringing and/or keeping the container at a pressure at least equal to a predefined pressure value, said pressure being higher
than the environmental pressure ([0212] The pressure above the liquid surface in the tank 314 is preferably controlled at a level sufficiently high to ensure that carbon dioxide dissolves at a high enough rate for the reaction between magnesium carbonate and the said species to take place at a rate high enough to ensure that the processing time is reduced to a maximum of a few hours, preferably to a maximum of about 4 to 8 hours, more preferably, to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours.);
a mineralization of the water, determined by a chemical reaction between said gas and said mineralizing substance, said mineralization of the water determining [[the]]a production of mineralized water with a solubilized compound deriving from said chemical reaction between said gas and said mineralizing substance ([0026] The method according to these aspects of the invention may include the step of controlling the pressure at an absolute pressure of from about 50 kPa to about 500 kPa.;[0212] The pressure above the liquid surface in the tank 314 is preferably controlled at a level sufficiently high to ensure that carbon dioxide dissolves at a high enough rate for the reaction between magnesium carbonate and the said species to take place at a rate high enough to ensure that the processing time is reduced to a maximum of a few hours, preferably to a maximum of about 4 to 8 hours, more preferably, to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours.). The examiner notes that environmental (i.e., atmospheric) pressure is about 101 kPa.
Per claim 11, wherein said mineralization gas comprises carbon dioxide, and wherein said mineralizing substance comprises at least one between a calcium compound and a magnesium compound ([0212] The pressure above the liquid surface in the tank 314 is preferably controlled at a level sufficiently high to ensure that carbon dioxide dissolves at a high enough rate for the reaction between magnesium carbonate and the said species to take place at a rate high enough to ensure that the processing time is reduced to a maximum of a few hours, preferably to a maximum of about 4 to 8 hours, more preferably, to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours.).
Regarding the limitation of optionally comprising carbonic acid, said step of mineralization being destined to allow the production of water with calcium bicarbonate, it is submitted that as the limitation is optional the applied prior art need not teach the limitation to otherwise read on the claim.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelley et al. (‘174).
Per claim 2, Shelley et al. the device comprising a water system configured for collecting at least part of said water from the container (via outlet 348) and for reinjecting said at least part of said water within said container in correspondence of an upper portion of said container and comprising an dispenser configured for causing, in use, a flow of water, in particular a rain and/or a nebulization of water in a portion of said container saturated of said mineral solubilisation gas;
wherein:
the device comprises a first opening (348) for the collection of water, connected with said water recirculation system, the first opening for the collection of water being positioned in a lower portion of the container (Fig. 3);
the device comprises a second opening (350) for the injection of water, connected with said water system, the second opening for the injection of water being positioned in a higher portion of the container (Fig. 3; [0210] An outlet 348 for magnesium bicarbonate solution and an inlet 350 for fresh water make-up, are also provided.). Shelley et al. do not disclose that the water system is a water recirculation system comprising at least a pipe connected between said first opening and said second opening, and at least a pump, positioned in correspondence of said pipe and configured for forcing, at least during said operating configuration of mineralization, a flow of water from the first opening to the second opening through said pipe.
It is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of thew skilled artisan to modify the device of Shelley et al. such that it comprises the water system is a water recirculation system comprising at least a pipe connected between said first opening and said second opening, and at least a pump, positioned in correspondence of said pipe and configured for forcing, at least during said operating configuration of mineralization, a flow of water from the first opening to the second opening through said pipe in order to, for example, provide multiple rounds of mineral solubilization until a desired mineral concentration is reached. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant achieves a new and unexpected result by utilizing the recited elements.
Per claim 6, Shelley et al. do not disclose wherein an assembly formed by the recirculation system and by the container realises, at least when the device is in said mineralization configuration, a closed water recirculation circuit.
It is submitted that it have been a routine matter of design choice to provide the device such that wherein an assembly formed by the recirculation system and by the container realises, at least when the device is in said mineralization configuration, a closed water recirculation circuit in order to, for example, provide multiple rounds of mineral solubilization and reach a desired mineral concentration prior to releasing any water from the recirculation system. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant achieves a new and unexpected result by utilizing the recited elements. Moreover, it has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 8, Shelley et al. disclose the method comprising a step of movement of the water contained in the container through a water system (Fig 3), said step of movement of the water comprising:
a collection of at least part of the water contained in the container (via outlet 348); and
a subsequent introduction of water within said container in correspondence of a higher portion of said container (Fig. 3), the collection of at least part of the water contained in the container taking place in correspondence of a first opening (348) for the collection of water, positioned in a lower portion of the container (Fig. 3), said first opening being connected with the water recirculation system. Shelley et al. do not disclose the water system being a recirculation system with reintroduction of water taking place at least through a dispenser of the water recirculation system and determining a flow of water, in particular a rain and/or a nebulization of water in a portion of said container saturated with said mineral solubilization gas; and wherein the step of recirculation of the water comprises: the subsequent reintroduction of said at least part of said water within said container taking place in correspondence of a second opening for the inlet of water positioned in a higher portion of the container, said second opening being connected with the water recirculation system; a flow of water in a pipe of said water recirculation system, said flow taking place between said first opening and said second opening, and being forced in said pipe through a pump of said water recirculation system.
It is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the method of Shelley et al. such that it comprises the water system being a recirculation system with reintroduction of water taking place at least through a dispenser of the water recirculation system and determining a flow of water, in particular a rain and/or a nebulization of water in a portion of said container saturated with said mineral solubilization gas; and wherein the step of recirculation of the water comprises: the subsequent reintroduction of said at least part of said water within said container taking place in correspondence of a second opening for the inlet of water positioned in a higher portion of the container, said second opening being connected with the water recirculation system; and a flow of water in a pipe of said water recirculation system, said flow taking place between said first opening and said second opening, and being forced in said pipe through a pump of said water recirculation system in order to, for example, provide multiple rounds of mineral solubilization until a desired mineral concentration is reached. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant achieves a new and unexpected result by utilizing the recited steps.
Per claim 12, Shelley et al. do not disclose wherein an assembly formed by the recirculation system and by the container realises, at least when the device is in said mineralization configuration, a closed water recirculation circuit.
It is submitted that it have been a routine matter of design choice to provide the device such that wherein an assembly formed by the recirculation system and by the container realises, at least when the device is in said mineralization configuration, a closed water recirculation circuit in order to, for example, provide multiple rounds of mineral solubilization and reach a desired mineral concentration prior to releasing any water from the recirculation system. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) that applicant achieves a new and unexpected result by utilizing the recited steps. Moreover, it has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 3, while claim 1 is not patentable for the reasons provided above, in the examiner’s opinion the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the device further comprising elements having the function, positioning and configuration as recited in claim 3.
Per claims 9 and 10, while claim 7 is not patentable for the reasons provided above, in the examiner’s opinion the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the method further comprising steps as recited in claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights