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
Claim 1 is an ion exchange system. Claim 1 recites that the ion exchange system comprises a first ion exchange column containing a first resin having an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the first resin’s affinity for chloride ion and a second ion exchange column connected in series fluid communication with the first ion exchange column, the second ion exchange column containing a second resin having an affinity for chloride ions. As established by Applicant in the November 10, 2025 Amendment, the drainage water limitation is not a component of the claimed system. Thus, the features of the drainage water are also not component(s) of the claimed system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20180118598 A1 (hereinafter US 598), as evidenced by Samatya, S., Kabay, N., Yüksel, Ü., Arda, M. and Yüksel, M., 2006. Removal of nitrate from aqueous solution by nitrate selective ion exchange resins. Reactive and Functional polymers, 66(11), pp.1206-1214 (hereinafter Samatya)
OR
in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Y., Amara, M. and Kerdjoudj, H., 2008. Anion exchange resin applied to a separation between nitrate and chloride ions in the presence of aqueous soluble polyelectrolyte. Desalination, 223(1-3), pp.238-242 (hereinafter Berbar).
Regarding claim 1, US 598 discloses an ion exchange system (see US 598 figures 1A-1C; abstract and paragraphs 0011 & 0097-0099) comprising a first ion exchange column containing a first resin having an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the first resin’s affinity for chloride ions, the first the first ion exchange column configured to pass a predetermined mass flow rate of drainage water therethrough (see US 598 paragraphs 0127).
US 598 is deemed capable of passing a predetermined mass flow rate of drainage water therethrough. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
As established above, “the drainage water introduced into the first ion exchange column having chloride ions and at least one of sulfate ions and nitrate ions contained therein” is not an element of the claimed ion exchange system. Nevertheless, US 598 discloses a feed water comprising chloride, sulfate and nitrate (see US 598 table 1 and paragraphs 0003, 0009, 0184, 0191, 0193).
US 598 discloses a second ion exchange column connected in fluid communication with the first ion exchange column (see US 598 figures 1A, 1B and paragraphs 0097, 0184), the second ion exchange column, the second ion exchange column configured to pass the same predetermined mass flow rate of the drainage water therethrough (see US 598 figures 1A, 1B and paragraphs 0097, 0127-0128, 0184, 0193).
US 598 is deemed capable of passing the same predetermined mass flow rate of the drainage water therethrough. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
US 598 discloses the second ion exchange column containing a second resin having an affinity for chloride ions (see US 598 figures 1A, 1B and paragraphs 0097, 0184 and 0193). US 598 discloses the resin is Purolite A520E, which is PS-DVB quaternary ammonium resin in Cl- form that has an affinity for nitrate, sulfate, chloride and carbonate, in said order (see US 598 paragraphs 0184 and 0193). As evidenced by Samatya, Purolite A520E has affinity for the removal of nitrate, sulfate and chloride (see Samatya section 3.5/page 1211). Samatya discloses “Nitrate specific resin has been proven to have affinity for the following ions in decreasing order;
PNG
media_image1.png
40
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Samatya Introduction/page 1207).
Thus, US 598 is deemed to disclose the second ion exchange column containing a second resin having an affinity for chloride ions.
Furthermore, US 598 discloses that the Purolite A520E/first resin/column will remove nitrate and replace with chloride, and thus, a subsequent column that comprises the second resin/ Purolite A520E will necessarily remove any anion that remains in the feed water, such as chloride ion, since the nitrate and/or sulfate has been removed in the first column. Hence, in the second/subsequent column, chloride will necessarily be removed by the second resin/Purolite A520E.
The materials and steps disclosed in US 598 appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
In the alternative, if US 598 does not disclose a “a second resin having an affinity for chloride ions”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by Berbar.
Berbar discloses an anion exchange resin that has an affinity for nitrate ions and chloride ions, Amberlite IRA 900 (see Berbar abstract, Tables 2 and 3 and section Conclusion/pages 241-242). Berbar discloses “When the ions, chloride and nitrate are present in solution, the ratio of their concentration is a direct consequence on the fixation amount. In fact, the Fig. 1 show the fixed amount of nitrate and chloride ions as a function of ration Cl−/NO3− initials concentrations. The more concentration of nitrate ions the less concentration of chloride ions fixed. The amount of nitrate ions fixed on the resin stay invariable until the ration of chloride/nitrate concentration equal to 10, and then it decreased” (see Berbar section Results and discussion/page 240). Berbar discloses that the Amberlite IRA 900 has greater selectivity to nitrate ions than to chloride ions (see Berbar section Results and discussion page 240; section Conclusion page 241-242; Tables 2 and 3and figure 1).
Berbar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. ion exchange; water purification/treatment; and/or removal of nitrate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the anion exchange resin, as disclosed in Berbar, as the resin in a subsequent column in the system of US 598 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of removing unwanted ions from water, such as nitrate and/or chloride.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention use the anion exchange resin, as disclosed in Berbar, as the resin in a subsequent column in the system of US 598 because it would assist with removing nitrate ion as well as additional ions that may be present in the feed water, such as chloride ions, as disclosed in Berbar.
Hence, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, is deemed to disclose an ion exchange system comprising a first ion exchange column containing a first resin having an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the first resin's affinity for chloride ions, the first ion exchange column configured to pass a predetermined mass flow rate of drainage water therethrough, the drainage water introduced into the first ion exchange column having chloride ions and at least one of sulfate ions and nitrate ions contained therein; and a second ion exchange column connected in series fluid communication with the first ion exchange column, the second ion exchange column containing a second resin having an affinity for chloride ions, the second ion exchange column configured to pass the same predetermined mass flow rate of drainage water therethrough.
US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar,discloses an embodiment comprising three ion exchange columns (see US 598 figures 1A-1B and paragraph 0184). US 598 in view of Berbar does not disclose “second ion exchange column connected in series fluid communication with the first ion exchange column”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a first column and second column in series in the method and system of US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, because it would assist with the treatment of the feed water by assisting with the removal of unwanted contaminants, such as nitrate ions and/or chloride ions. The series configuration of the subsequent column(s) would assist with removal of unwanted contaminants because the feed water would be undergoing a second, third, etc, removal/ion exchange process.
US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, is deemed to disclose as the drainage water passes through the first ion exchange column, the at least one of the sulfate ions and nitrate ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for first ions in the first resin resulting in a first drainage water discharge fluid with removed sulfate or nitrate ions and added first ions; and as the drainage water passes through the second ion exchange column, chloride ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for second ions in the second resin resulting in a second drainage water discharge fluid with removed chloride ions and added second ions. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
The materials and steps disclosed in US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, will necessarily result in as the drainage water passes through the first ion exchange column, the at least one of the sulfate ions and nitrate ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for first ions in the first resin resulting in a first drainage water discharge fluid with removed sulfate or nitrate ions and added first ions; and as the drainage water passes through the second ion exchange column, chloride ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for second ions in the second resin resulting in a second drainage water discharge fluid with removed chloride ions and added second ions, as recited in claim 1. The materials and steps disclosed in US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, appear to be substantially identical to the claimed material(s) and step(s) and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 3, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the first ion exchange column having a first geometry that induces a first fluid velocity of the drainage water through the first ion exchange column, and the second ion exchange column having a second geometry that induces a second fluid velocity of the first drainage water through the second ion exchange column (see US 598 paragraphs 0054, 0130-0131, 0184).
US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, does not disclose the second fluid velocity being less than the first fluid velocity, as recited in claim 2, and US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, does not disclose the second fluid velocity is about one third to two thirds the first fluid velocity, as recited in claim 3.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the geometry/flow rate/velocity of the first and second ion exchange columns, in relation to one another, because it would assist with the treatment of the feed water by assisting with the removal of unwanted contaminants, such as nitrate ions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the geometry/flow rate/velocity of the first and second ion exchange columns, in relation to one another, because if the velocity relationship is too high then too much impurity is not removed from the feed water and if the velocity relationship is too low then the time to process the feed water will be too great and/or be an inefficient use of materials.
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed geometry/velocity cannot be considered critical. US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses that the length of the service cycle, which would include the length of time the feed water is processed through an ion exchange column, “affects the chemical composition of the product water, particularly the chloride concentration, the amount of waste brine generated per volume of final product water” (see US 598 paragraph 0192; see also US 598 paragraphs 0113-0115, 0184, 0194-0199). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed column geometry/flow rate/velocity. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the geometry/flow rate/velocity of the first and second ion exchange columns, in relation to one another, and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the second resin has an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the second resin's affinity for chloride ions (see rejection of claim 1; see Berbar section Conclusion/pages 421-424; tables 2 & 3; and figure 1). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 5, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the first resin and the second resin are substantially the same resin (see rejection of claim 1).
The term “substantially” is a definite relative term (see MPEP 2173.05(b), III, C). The as-originally filed specification discloses that the term “substantially” “may be used throughout this disclosure, including the claims, are used to describe and account for small fluctuations, such as due to variations in processing from a reference or parameter. Such small fluctuations include a zero fluctuation from the reference or parameter as well. For example, they can refer to less than or equal to +10%, such as less than or equal to +5%, such as less than or equal to +2%, such as less than or equal to +1%, such as less than or equal to + 0.5%, such as less than or equal to +0.2%, such as less than or equal to + 0.1%, such as less than or equal to + 0.05%” (see as-originally filed specification paragraph 0028). The as-originally filed specification does not define the scope of “substantially the same resin” (see as-originally filed specification paragraph 0032).
Herein, the term “substantially the same resin” is understood as a resin that shares several similar characteristics. US 598 discloses that the same resin may be used in each of the columns (see US 598 paragraphs 0011, 0026, 0088, 0097, 0184, 0193). US 598 in view of Berbar discloses the first resin and the second resin are substantially the same since both resins are strong base anion type I resin, are a styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and has a trimethylammonium functional group. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 21, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses as the drainage water passes through the first ion exchange column, sulfate ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for first ions in the first resin; and as the first drainage water discharge fluid passes through the second ion exchange column, nitrate ions and chloride ions are removed from the drainage water and exchanged for second ions in the second resin (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598 in view of Berbar as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Hekmatzadeh, A.A., Karimi-Jashani, A., Talebbeydokhti, N. and Kløve, B., 2012. Modeling of nitrate removal for ion exchange resin in batch and fixed bed experiments. Desalination, 284, pp.22-31 (hereinafter Hekmatzadeh).
Regarding claim 4, US 598 in view of Berbar discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598 in view of Berbar does not explicitly disclose the second resin has an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the second resin's affinity for chloride ions.
Hekmatzadeh discloses a study of nitrate removal from aqueous solution (see Hekmatzadeh abstract). Hekmatzadeh discloses “conventional anion exchange resins usually have an ion selectivity sequence of SO4− − > NO3− > CL− > HCO3− [8]. … Amberlite IRA 410 [26], Amberlite IRA 900 [27], Amberlite IRN-78 [28], Amberlite IRA 400 [29], and Amberlite IRN 9766 [22] are examples of conventional anion exchange resins used in the studies on nitrate removal (emphasis added) (see Hekmatzadeh section Introduction/page 22).
Hekmatzadeh is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. ion exchange; water purification/treatment; and/or removal of nitrate.
Hekmatzadeh is evidence that Amberlite IRA 900, which is the second resin in the system and method of US 598 in view of Berbar, has an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the second resin’s affinity for chloride ions.
Hence, US 598 in view of Berbar, as evidenced by Hekmatzadeh, is deemed to disclose the second resin has an affinity for sulfate ions and nitrate ions that is greater than the second resin's affinity for chloride ions.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598 in view of Berbar as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Purolite A520E Product Data Sheet (hereinafter Purolite) (September 7, 2012) and Amberlite IRA 900 Product Data Sheet (hereinafter Amberlite) (June 8, 2019).
Regarding claim 5, US 598 in view of Berbar discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598 in view of Berbar discloses the first resin and the second resin are substantially the same resin (see rejection of claim 1).
However, US 598 in view of Berbar does not explicitly disclose the first resin and the second resin are substantially the same resin.
Amberlite discloses that the Amberlite IRA 900 ion exchange resin is a strong base anion type I resin, is a styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and has a trimethylammonium functional group (see Amberlite page 2).
Purolite discloses that the Purolite A520E ion exchange resin is a strong base anion type I resin, has a polystyrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene polymer structure and has a quaternary ammonium type functional group (see Purolite page 1).
Amberlite and Purolite establish that both Purolite A520E and Amberlite IRA 900 are both strong base anion type I resins, have a styrene-divinylbenzene type polymer and have a quaternary ammonium type functional group.
Hence, US 598 in view of Berbar, as evidenced by Amberlite and Purolite, is deemed to disclose the first resin and the second resin are substantially the same resin.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rokicki, C.A. and Boyer, T.H., 2011. Bicarbonate-form anion exchange: Affinity, regeneration, and stoichiometry. Water research, 45(3), pp.1329-1337 (hereinafter Rokicki).
Regarding claim 6, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar, does not disclose the first ions in the first resin comprise bicarbonate ions that are exchanged for the at least one of the sulfate ions and nitrate ions as the drainage water passes through the first ion exchange column; and the second ions in the second resin comprise bicarbonate ions that are exchanged for the chloride ions as the drainage water passes through the second ion exchange column.
Rokicki discloses bicarbonate-form resins have a similar affinity as chloride-form ion exchange resins (see Rokicki abstract). Rokicki discloses “bicarbonate-form anion exchange can effectively treat water for the removal of nitrate and sulfate. In addition, bicarbonate-form anion exchange has been shown to decrease the corrosivity of treated water” (see Rokicki section 1/page 1330). Rokicki discloses that a bicarbonate form ion exchange resin has affinity for chloride sulfate and nitrate (see Rokicki figures 2-3; abstract, section 1/page 1330; section 3/page 1332 (Rokicki discloses “bicarbonate-form anion exchange performs nearly ideatical to chloride-form anion exchange, and that all forms of MIEX resin exhibit the same affinity trend with sulfate > nitrate > bicarbonate ~ chloride” (see Rokicki section 3/page 1332). Rokicki discloses that the bicarbonate-form ion exchange resin is regenerated with bicarbonate (see Rokicki section 2.1/page 1330; section 2.2/page 1331; section 3.2/page 1333). Rokicki discloses that chloride-form anion exchange resins are problematic due to the increased corrosion and excessive chloride loading to wastewater treatment plans and surface water (see Rokicki section 1/page 1329-1330; section 4/page 1336).
Rokicki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. ion exchange; water purification/treatment; and/or removal of impurities, such as nitrate, sulfate and/or chloride.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the chloride-form anion exchange resins, as disclosed in US 598, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar,, with a bicarbonate-form anion exchange resins, as disclosed in Rokicki, because it would assist with reducing corrosion and chloride loading to wastewater (see Rokicki section 1/page 1329-1330; section 4/page 1336), while also maintaining similar affinity to nitrate, sulfate and chloride (see Rokicki section 1/page 1330; section 3/page 1332).
Regarding claim 7, US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses a bicarbonate removal tank configured to receive the drainage water that is discharged from the second ion exchange column (see US 598 figure 1C and paragraphs 0063-0066, 0186-0187; see Rokicki abstract and section 3.2/page 1333-1334 and section 3.2.2/page 1335).
US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses a tank that is capable of storing material. US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses that bicarbonate ions are the first ions and the second ions that are being passed through the first ion exchange column and the second ion exchange column, respectively. Thus, the tank of US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, will necessarily be a bicarbonate removal tank that is configured to receive the second drainage water discharge fluid that is discharged from the second ion exchange column.
US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses an acid injection system configured to inject acid into the bicarbonate removal tank to convert bicarbonate ions (HCO3) contained in the drainage water into carbon dioxide (CO2) (see US 598 paragraph 0015, 0028, 0065, which discloses an acid injection system; see Rokicki section 1/page 1330; section 3.2.2/page 1334 and section 4/page 1336, which discloses the use of carbon dioxide gas to regenerate a bicarbonate form resin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an acid injection system, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, to generate carbon dioxide from the wastewater material of US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki,, because it would generate carbon dioxide gas that would assist with the regeneration of the bicarbonate form ion exchange resin, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to use an acid, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, to generate carbon dioxide to regenerate the ion exchange resin, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by https://www.instructables.com/Make-Co2-for-Sparkling-Water/ (2017) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 7, US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, discloses a bicarbonate removal tank configured to receive the drainage water that is discharged from the second ion exchange column; and an acid injection system configured to inject acid into the bicarbonate removal tank to convert bicarbonate ions (HCO3) contained in the drainage water into carbon dioxide (CO2) (see rejection of claim 7 above).
As evidenced by NPL, one of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to use an acid, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, to generate carbon dioxide to regenerate the ion exchange resin, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki. NPL discloses that the addition of an acid, such as vinegar, into an aqueous solution containing bicarbonate, will generate carbonic acid that then decompose immediately to form gaseous carbon dioxide.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an acid injection system, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, to generate carbon dioxide from the wastewater material of US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, because it would generate carbon dioxide gas, as evidenced by NPL, that would assist with the regeneration of the bicarbonate form ion exchange resin, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, and would minimize the wastewater generated by the system and method of US 598 in view of Rokicki, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki,, as evidenced by NPL, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220274100 A1 (hereinafter US 100).
Regarding claim 8, US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses a regeneration system for regenerating the first ions in the first resin and the second ions in the second resin with bicarbonate ions after the drainage water has passed through the first ion exchange column and second ion exchange columns and after the first drainage water discharge fluid has passed through the second ion exchange columns (see rejection of claims 6 and 7)
US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses a first tank configured to contain a regenerate solution of ammonium bicarbonate (see rejection of claims 6 and 7).
US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the system comprises “monitoring device, a control unit, or a controller (e.g., computer) may also be used to monitor, control and/or automate the operation of the various components of the systems disclosed herein, such as any of the valves, sensors, weirs, blowers, fans, dampers, pumps, etc” (see US 598 paragraph 0079). US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses “the terms “fluid communication” or “hydraulically connection” which are used hereinthroughout interchangeably, means fluidically interconnected, and refers to the existence of a continuous coherent flow path from one of the components of the system to the other if there is, or can be established, liquid and/or gas flow through and between the ports even if there exists a valve between the two conduits that can be closed, when desired, to impede fluid flow therebetween” (see US 598 paragraph 0118).
US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose the first tank in selective fluid communication with a first three-way valve.
US 100 discloses a water softening system (see US 100 paragraph 0012; see also US 100 figures 1, 2, & 4-6). US 100 discloses that the water softening system is able to “switch between the water softening treatment and the regeneration treatment and execute the water softening treatment and the regenerating treatment” (see US 100 paragraph 0041). US 100 discloses that the regeneration apparatus comprises “electrolysis tank 112, treatment tank 113, water pump 114, and filtration part 129 as a separation tank” (see US 100 paragraph 0047; see also US 100 paragraphs 0059-0065 and figures 1, 2 & 4-6) as well as a first three-way valve and second three-way valve (see US 100 paragraph 0124-0125 & 0130 and figure 4).
US 100 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water softening system, and/or regeneration of water softening system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a water pump and at least 2 three-way valves, as disclosed in US 100, because it would assist with controlling the flow of liquid through the ion exchange resin columns of US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL,.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, by incorporating a water pump and at least 2 three-way valves, as disclosed in US 100, because US 598 in view of Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US598 in view of Berbar and Rokicki, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the “monitoring device, a control unit, or a controller (e.g., computer) may also be used to monitor, control and/or automate the operation of the various components of the systems disclosed herein, such as any of the valves, sensors, weirs, blowers, fans, dampers, pumps, etc” (see US 598 paragraph 0079) and US 100 discloses a water pump and at least 2 three-way valves to achieve regeneration of a water softening system.
Hence, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is deemed to disclose a regeneration system for regenerating the first ions in the first resin and the second ions in the second resin with bicarbonate ions after the drainage water has passed through the first and second ion exchange columns, the regeneration system comprising a first tank configured to contain a regenerate solution of ammonium bicarbonate, the first tank in selective fluid communication with a first three-way valve, a first pump having an intake port in fluid communication with the first three-way valve, a second three-way valve in fluid communication with an output port of the first pump and in selective fluid communication with the first and second ion exchange columns.
US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, discloses a freshwater rinsing of the ion exchange resin as a component of the regeneration process (see US 598 paragraphs 0062, 0185). US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose a second tank configured to contain fresh water. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a second tank, which is presumed inherently capable of containing fresh water, because it would assist with storage of fresh water for the rinsing portion of the regeneration process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a second tank, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, (see US 598 figures 1A and 1C; see US 100 figures 1 & 2), because it would assist with storage of a liquid medium, such as fresh water for a rinse portion of the regeneration process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a second tank, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, (see US 598 figures 1A and 1C; see US 100 figures 1 & 2), since it has been held that mere duplication of an element of an apparatus involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. There is no patentable significance of an additional tank, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional storage, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
Hence, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is deemed to disclose a regeneration system for regenerating the first ions in the first resin and the second ions in the second resin with bicarbonate ions after the drainage water has passed through the first and second ion exchange columns, the regeneration system comprising a first tank configured to contain a regenerate solution of ammonium bicarbonate, the first tank in selective fluid communication with a first three-way valve; a second tank configured to contain fresh water, the second tank in selective fluid communication with the first three-way valve; a first pump having an intake port in fluid communication with the first three-way valve; a second three-way valve in fluid communication with an output port of the first pump and in selective fluid communication with the first and second ion exchange columns; wherein, the first and second three-way valves are operable to selectively provide fluid communication between: the first tank and the first ion exchange column, the first tank and the second ion exchange column, the second tank and the first ion exchange column, and the second tank and the second ion exchange column.
It is noted that the first tank, second tank, first pump, first thee-way valve and the second three-way valve, are all part of the ion exchange system comprising a first ion exchange column and a second ion exchange column. Each of the components of the system are in fluid communication with one another within.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is substantially identical to the claimed the first and second three-way valves of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is presumed inherently capable of selectively providing fluid communication between the first tank and the first ion exchange column, the first tank and the second ion exchange column, the second tank and the first ion exchange column, and the second tank and the second ion exchange column.
Regarding claim 9, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the regeneration system is operable to pump, via the first pump, the regenerate solution at a first flow rate from the first tank through the first ion exchange column in a reverse flow direction relative to the flow of drainage water, and collect a resulting nutrient brine from the first ion exchange column in a nutrient brine tank; pump, via the first pump, the fresh water at a second flow rate from the second tank through the first ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting first water effluent from the first ion exchange column in the nutrient brine tank, wherein the second flow rate is faster than the first flow rate; pump, via the first pump, the regenerate solution at a third flow rate from the first tank through the second ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting chloride brine from the second ion exchange column in a chloride brine tank; and pump, via the first pump, the fresh water at a fourth flow rate from the second tank through the second ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting second water effluent from the first ion exchange column in the chloride brine tank, wherein the fourth flow rate is faster than the third flow rate (see claims 1 & 6-8).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is substantially identical to the claimed regeneration system of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is presumed inherently capable of a) pumping, via the first pump, the regenerate solution at a first flow rate from the first tank through the first ion exchange column in a reverse flow direction relative to the flow of drainage water, and collect a resulting nutrient brine from the first ion exchange column in a nutrient brine tank; b) pumping, via the first pump, the fresh water at a second flow rate from the second tank through the first ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting first water effluent from the first ion exchange column in the nutrient brine tank, wherein the second flow rate is faster than the first flow rate; c) pumping, via the first pump, the regenerate solution at a third flow rate from the first tank through the second ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting chloride brine from the second ion exchange column in a chloride brine tank; and d) pumping, via the first pump, the fresh water at a fourth flow rate from the second tank through the second ion exchange column in the reverse flow direction, and collect a resulting second water effluent from the first ion exchange column in the chloride brine tank, wherein the fourth flow rate is faster than the third flow rate.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20120318743 A1 (hereinafter US 743).
Regarding claim 10, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, discloses a second pump configured to pump the chloride brine from the chloride brine tank to a first holding tank (see rejection of claim 8).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate additional pump components, as disclosed in US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, (see US 598 paragraphs 0032, 0071, 0079 & 0094; see US 100 paragraphs 0047, 0065, 0157), since it has been held that mere duplication of an element of an apparatus involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. There is no patentable significance of an additional pump, which predictable provides pressure to move a fluid through a system and/or pipeline, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
Hence, US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, is deemed to disclose a second pump configured to pump the chloride brine from the chloride brine tank to a first holding tank and a third pump configured to pump the ammonia gas into the first tank of the regeneration system to be incorporated into the regenerate solution of ammonium bicarbonate in the first tank.
US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose a lime injection system configured to inject lime into the first holding tank to raise the pH of the chloride brine to about 12 and to convert the ammonium (NH4) in the chloride brine to ammonia (NH3) gas; an ammonia collection tank configured to collect the ammonia gas.
US 743 discloses a water treatment method and system comprising cation and anion ion exchange columns and the regeneration of said columns wherein recoverable by-products are generated during the regeneration process and thereby minimizing waste (see US 743 abstract, figures 1-2, 5, 7 and paragraph 0118). US 743 discloses “regenerating the anion column by passing a solution containing at least one species which includes hydroxide ions bound with a carrier ion, to displace from the resin the sulphate and chloride ions to leave a hydroxide loaded resin and producing mainly a solution containing a mixture of sulphate and chloride ions and the carrier ion” (see US 743 paragraph 9 and claim 1). US 743 discloses “treating the ammonium chloride and ammonium sulphate of step c) with calcium hydroxide to produce a solution containing calcium sulphate, ammonia gas and calcium chloride, of which the calcium sulphate precipitates from the solution, the ammonia gas may be stripped from the solution and redissolved in water to form ammonium hydroxide for use in step c)” (see US 743 paragraph 0014; see also US 743 paragraph 0082).
US 743 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water softening system, and/or regeneration of water softening system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a step of adding calcium hydroxide to produce a solution containing calcium sulphate, ammonia gas and calcium chloride, in the regeneration process, as disclosed in US 743, because it would assist with the regeneration process while also minimizing waste (see US 743 abstract and paragraph 0118)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 598 in view of Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, or in the alternative, US 598 in view of Berbar, Rokicki and US 100, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a storage device, as disclosed in US 598 (see US 598 paragraph 0071) or as disclosed in US 743 (see US 743 figures 5-14), it would assist with storage or containing of the generated ammonia gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered.
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
The indefiniteness rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the obviousness rejection(s) have been considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
In the response, it was argued that US 598 does not render obvious the claimed device because of the method of US 598 (see Response pages 12-21). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. The claims of the present application are directed towards an apparatus. The method of US 598 can use the system for a different process from that intended by Applicants. Nevertheless, the system of US 598 renders obvious the presently claimed system. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In the response, it was argued that “Green's resins have an affinity for nitrate ions, but no affinity for chloride ions at all” (emphasis removed) (see Response page 14). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. US 598 discloses Purolite A520E resin. Purolite has an affinity for nitrate, sulfate, and chloride. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
In the response, Applicant cites “https://www.purolite.com/product-pdf/AS20E.pdf” (see Response page 18). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. This document is not a part of the record of the present application. This document has not been cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
Nevertheless, as evidenced by Samatya and estabished in Berbar, Purolite A520E has an affinity for nitrate, sulfate and chloride regardless of its form. That is, Purolite A520E will remove nitrate with greater affinity than sulfate or chloride but once nitrate and sulfate are removed, Purolite A520E will remove chloride. Thus, even if the “https://www.purolite.com/product-pdf/AS20E.pdf” (see Response page 18) discloses Purolite A520E resin is in chloride form, this does not take away from the fact that the Purolite A520E resin will have affinity for chloride if no further nitrate or sulfate ions are present in the solution, as evidenced in Samatya and Berbar.
I also wanted to suggest that the attorney may argue that a strong base anion resin like A520E will not exchange chloride ions for chloride ions, in which case I think it’s great that you have the rejection over Berbar in there too. Hopefully we can at least get them to specify what the “added second ions” are in a claim amendment.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
Zareie, H., Yazdani, F. and Mokhtarani, B., 2022. Removal of water nitrate using modified Purolite A520E resin, synthesis and experimental design. Materials Chemistry and Physics, 285, p.126098 (hereinafter Zareie) discloses that Purolite A520E has an affinity for nitrate, sulfate and chloride (see Zareie section 3.6/pages 6-7 and figure 7).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773