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 11-14 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 11 recites the term “upward.” This limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined as no point of reference is given for what the lines are extending upward from. As such, the claim is indefinite as the term upward is based on a point of reference that is not defined.
Claim 114 recites the term “downward.” This limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined as no point of reference is given for what the lines are extending downward from. As such, the claim is indefinite as the term downward is based on a point of reference that is not defined.
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) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2020-0107785 in IDS).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches a water treatment system comprising: a filter module (10 11 12) configured to remove at least some of the ionic materials contained in the source water based on an electrical force, and discharge the soft water; a supply channel (channel from source S) configured to supply the source water to the filter module; a discharge channel (channel connecting filter module to P) configured to guide the soft water discharged from the filter module to a demand source; a reclaim channel (51 52) branched from the discharge channel; and a descaling part (60) connected to the reclaim channel, and configured to provide a descaling material for removing scale to an interior of the reclaim channel (Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0071]).
It is noted that Applicant has defined the descaling part as including citric acid and Kim teaches that treatment unit (60) uses citric acid.
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches a reclaim valve (41 42) as claimed (Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0071]).
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, 13-17, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2020-0107785 in IDS) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111847603 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a water treatment system comprising: a filter module (10 11 12) configured to remove at least some of the ionic materials contained in the source water based on an electrical force, and discharge the soft water; a supply channel (channel from source S) configured to supply the source water to the filter module; a discharge channel (channel connecting filter module to P) configured to guide the soft water discharged from the filter module to the demand source; a circulation channel (33) branched from the supply channel; a reclaim channel (51 52) branched from the discharge channel; a connection channel (channel downstream of 23 to discharge channel) connecting the discharge channel and the circulation channel; and a descaling part (60).
Kim teaches that the descaling part is provided in the supply channel before the filter module thereby providing a forward washing step and not connected to the connection channel, and configured to provide a descaling material for removing scale to an interior of connection channel as claimed. Lu teaches a similar water treatment apparatus having an electric based filter module wherein the filter module is backwashed and a large circulation loop is provided that would include a circulation channel (24), a connection channel (31), and a reclaim channel (25 26) (Fig. 1). Such a design allows for backwashing of the electric filter module while allowing for circulation of the cleaning liquid through a loop comprising the connection and circulation channels and then allowing for eventual removal of the used cleaning fluid via the reclaim channel. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Kim to include the circulation channel, connection channel, and descaling part as claimed in order to allow for backwashing of the filter module while allowing for recirculation of the cleaning fluid if desired.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Lu teaches a descaling channel (Kim channel connecting 60 to main channels or Lu 1), a descaling module (Kim 60 or Lu 30), and a pump as claimed (Kim 62 Lu 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches a reclaim valve (41 42). It is noted that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). In this case, modified Kim teaches all claimed limitations and is capable of opening and closing the valves as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a supply valve (71) upstream of the circulation channel, a discharge valve (21 22). As discussed above, how the device is operated does not provide patentability to an apparatus claim when all claimed structure is taught.
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Lu teach the use of pumps but does not provide a specific circulation pump as claimed. However, providing a pump wherever fluid is being moved would have been obvious as doing so would ensure the desired flow when required.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, how the device is operated does not provide patentability to an apparatus claim when all claimed structure is taught.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a valve (23) in the connection line. As discussed above, how the device is operated does not provide patentability to an apparatus claim when all claimed structure is taught.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 9, see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, it is noted that Kim teaches that the reclaim line can be divided into many different parts (Fig. 1). How the pipes are arranged relative to one another would have been an obvious matter of fitting the pipes of the line in the space required or an obvious rearrangement of parts where the relative positioning is immaterial as a pump already provides the desired flow through the lines.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that a fitting module would be needed at the connection point between the various parts/channels else they would not interact with one another. The respective placements would have been an obvious matter as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, see claims 3-5 above for the various valves and pumps. Kim further teaches that the operation of the valves and pumps and controlled via a processor/controller ([0073]-[0076]).
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 19, as discussed in claim 1 above, Kim in view of Lu teaches a backwashing operation that would either require the controller to operate the pumps and valves as claimed, or it would have been an obvious matter to control the valves and pumps in said manner in order to inject the descaling agent into the filter module while allowing for circulation of the cleaning fluid/descaling agent through the system. Further, the removal of the cleaning fluid/descaling agent from the system would require the various valves to operate claimed.
Regarding claim 21, see claims 2 and 20 above. It is noted that backwashing a filter occurs when the cleaning material is introduced into the filter module in a reverse direction.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2020-0107785 in IDS) in view of Lu et al. (CN 111847603 in IDS) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0304203).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim teaches various treatment and cleaning operations but fails to teach the controller configured to provide a feed flush operation of the filter module as claimed. Smith teaches that for cleaning filter modules, chemical treatment can be provided with feed flushing in order to maintain operational management of the filter module ([0060]-[0061]). It is further noted that one skilled in the art would recognize that including a feed flush after a chemical treatment step would also remove any unwanted treatment chemicals and/or particulates from the filter module prior to desired use. Thus, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to configure the controller to include a feed flush operation as such operations are known to be used with backflushing and chemical treatment steps for filter modules and doing so would remove any residual chemical/particulates from the filter module prior to desired use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
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 1777
Prosecution Insights