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 § 102
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 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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urano et al (JP H1-245817A).
A translation of the description of Urano is provided with this action.
With respect to claim 1, Urano teaches a system for producing hot superpure/ultrapure water [Abs] for a point of use, which includes primary and secondary purification elements e.g. ion exchange (3) and filter (7) [Abs], as well as heating means (5A), (5B) for pasteurizing the water before feeding to a point of use (19) via a pipeline [Fig. 1], a first heat exchange device (4) which allows water which has not exited via the point of use (“surplus heat ultrapure water”) to return via line (20) [pg. 5, first paragraph] and pre-heat incoming water upstream of the heating means [pg. 4, second paragraph]; such returned water is fed back to the pretreatment devices upstream which are otherwise not illustrated, via line (15) [pg. 4, second paragraph]. Further, a warm pure water supply mechanism may supply warm water to the midpoint of the return line via a separate blow line (8) which takes reject water from the filter (7) and returns it to the return line (14) [pg. 4, second paragraph].
As best understood, the system of Urano anticipates the claimed invention, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Urano teaches that the heating device (5A), (5B) may be any heating device but teaches exemplary technologies including heat exchangers employing steam and the like [pg. 3, first paragraph].
With respect to claim 4, Urano teaches multiple heating devices such that one of them e.g. (5B) may be a third heat exchanger in the pure water supply pipeline.
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al in view of Horii (JP 2018-43191 A).
A translation of the description of Horii is provided with this action.
Urano teaches as above, but is silent to the use of a tank on the return line e.g. to accept streams including the warm water supply, or to additional cooling on the return line beyond heat exchanger (4) (which heats incoming water and thus cools the return water).
However, Horii teaches ultrapure water production with heating means and with arrangements to reduce heating costs [Abs] in which returning ultrapure water from a point of use (40) is fed via lines (41), (44) to return to the purification system, and is fed via a subtank (2) after having its temperature reduced by heat exchangers (6) and (43), where (6) represents heating of the purification line i.e. analogous to Urano’s exchanger (4), and (43) represents an additional cooling step [Abs, Fig. 1], returning the heat to loops which drive the primary heating systems [pg. 5, last paragraph-pg. 6, first paragraph].
It would have been obvious to provide a suitable storage and surge volume such as sub-tank (2) of Horii into the system of Urano, to provide a volume in which to combine the return water streams and the incoming purification stream. Further, it would have been obvious to provide additional cooling/heat exchange on the return line to more efficiently capture heat and employ it in driving the heating system of the device, as in Horii.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is taught by Urano, above, which does teach temperature sensors (6A), (6B) and a controller (29) to ensure that the water in the system is heated to a sufficient temperature. However, there is no teaching or suggestion of adjusting the warm pure water supply mechanism i.e. the blow line (8) based on temperature; this would in fact be contrary to the design of Urano, which uses that line to control the pressure in the filter (7) via sensor (9) [pg. 5], and valve (10) in the blow line is controlled to control the flow ratio in the filter in general [pg. 5]. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would motivate one to modify the system of Urano in the claimed manner, in particular because Urano teaches more directly controlling temperature rates already. The prior art alone or in combination would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention of claim 5, such that claim 5 and dependent claims 6 and 7 are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights