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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application employs “means” limitations in instant claims 1-3:
Urea concentration measuring means which is interpreted as a urea meter or equivalents thereof [0030 of the instant specification];
Control means which is not associated with any particular structure in the specification as currently understood;
Chlorine demand measuring means which is interpreted as a chlorine demand meter or equivalents thereof [0030];
Residual chlorine concentration measuring means which is interpreted as a residual chlorine meter [0044].
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
See the claim interpretation section above. Claim 1 recites a control means for adding hypochlorite and the like to the water being treated by the system, but the instant specification does not disclose structure for performing the recited “control” function, instead only repeating the term “control means”; see MPEP 2181 II.A. As such, the metes and bounds of claims 1-3 are unclear and the claims are indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP 2019-063768 A) in view of Yui et al (US PGPub 2023/0373826 A1 – also available as JP 2022-030031 A) and Tomita et al (JP 2009-006316 A).
Arai was cited by applicant on an IDS; a machine translation of the description is provided with this action for reference. The US publication of Yui is cited in this action for convenience.
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Arai teaches systems and processes for water treatment to remove urea which includes treating with a water-soluble bromide salt and a hypochlorite [Abs]. The system and process operate by measuring residual chlorine downstream of the treatment section (which implicitly provides a measurement or indication of chlorine consumption, or at minimum renders such determination obvious) and using this to control the dosing of the hypochlorite to the system, in order to ensure stable decomposition [0029].
Arai is silent to a urea concentration sensor or to performing measurements of the concentration of urea upstream of the treatment section, and using such measurements to provide further control of the hypochlorite dosage in a feed-forward manner.
Yui teaches systems and methods for treating water [Abs] including water containing urea [0005] in which control of the dosing of chemicals uses data from an upstream urea concentration measurement with a suitable sensor [0023]; the chemicals for dosing may include sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide [0024]. Yui is silent to downstream measurements to provide further control of the hypochlorite dosage in a feedback manner.
Tomita teaches a system and process for treating wastewater with oxidizers [Abs] and teaches employing a combination of feed-forward and feedback control of the dosage of oxidizing agent, and that this provides improved results, both in terms of avoiding the use of too much oxidizing agent, but also situations in which the water quality deteriorates beyond acceptable limits due to the use of too little oxidizing agent [0050, Figs. 10-11]. This is accomplished by employing a controller (30) which is connected to both upstream (28) and downstream (32) sensors [0047, Fig. 7] to control dosage in a treatment section (27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Arai to feature upstream urea sensors for feed-forward control because, as in Yui, this is similarly useful for controlling the dosage of a bromine salt and hypochlorite for the purpose of urea decomposition and, in view of Tomita, the combination of feed-forward (upstream) and feedback (downstream) controls may beneficially be employed in oxidative water treatment processes to improve the process, avoiding both undertreatment and overtreatment and thereby maintaining stable treatment levels.
With respect to claims 2 and 5, as above the upstream urea sensor such as that employed by Yui may be considered at least an estimate of the chlorine demand, absent clarification of the specific requirements. Alternatively, Tomita suggests the use of further upstream sensors e.g. (22) for further oxidative treatments [0047] and the use of additional sensors to measure various aspects of demand would at least have been obvious. Regarding specific concentrations employed, Arai teaches adding hypochlorite in a concentration range that results in 1-10 mg/L available chlorine [0038].
With respect to claims 7 and 8, as above at least Yui suggests controlling the amount of a bromide salt based on upstream urea concentration measurements, using feed-forward control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is rejected under 112(b) for the reasons discussed above but, as best understood, is free from the prior art.
Claims 6 and 9 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 Arai and Yui, as discussed above, which teach downstream measurements of residual chlorine and upstream measurements of urea concentration, respectively. Neither Arai nor Yui teach or fairly suggest upstream measurements of residual chlorine, and there is no indication that one of ordinary skill in the art would further modify the combination to incorporate this feature, as there is no indication it would be useful for feed-forward control of the type employed by Yui. The teachings of Tomita which combine feed-forward and feedback elements into a single system and process for improvements do not remedy this; there is no teaching or suggestion of upstream residual chlorine measurements and the prior art, alone or in combination, would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to implement them.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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 1776
Prosecution Insights