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 .
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The specification contains a typographical error in paragraph [0031], i.e. “electrolytic call”.
Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) that have been submitted have been considered; however, due to the extensive number of references, foreign documents, and/or non-patent literature submitted therewith Applicant is reminded that under 37 CFR 1.56 they have a duty of candor and good faith to disclose only information that is material to patentability with respect to each pending claim. There is no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim. No patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct.
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 7-22 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 1 recites “a selective membrane … selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. The limitation “selective for greater than 99% of PFAS” is based upon an unknown element “water containing PFAS after photolysis”. That is, the quantity of PFAS in the water after photolysis is unknown.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove PFAS present from the water to be treated.
Claim 1 recites “a photoreactor comprising: … a selective membrane” and recites “a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite since the location of the selective membrane is based upon itself. That is, the claimed photoreactor comprises a selective membrane and thus, the location being downstream and being in fluid communication is based upon itself.
Claim 15 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-14 and 16-22 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 7-9, 14-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2007/0119779 A1 (hereinafter US 779) (US 779 was filed on July 24, 2006, claims priority to JP2004-013848 and was published on May 31, 2007. US 779 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).).
Regarding independent claim 7, US 779 discloses a system for PFAS destruction (see US 779 abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0025-0028, 0029, 0030, 0033-0074, 0099, 0104, 0167-0179 and figures 1-12) (US 779 discloses a method and system of treating hardly-decomposable-substance-containing water, wherein hardly decomposable substances include dioxins and other endocrine-disrupting substances).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
US 779 discloses a photoreactor (see US 779 figures 3, 9-16 and paragraphs 0025, 0029-0036, 0039-0042, 0045, 0047, 0049-0058, 0071, 0128-0148, 0167-0179, 0189-0197 (US 779 discloses a treatment apparatus that is deemed a photoreactor).
US 779 discloses a reactor vessel configured to receive water containing PFAS (see US 779 figures 3, 9-16 and paragraphs 0025, 0049-0050, 0181-0182, 0186-0187, 0197, 0199 (US 779 discloses a an introduction tank (11) to which raw water is added to (see US 779 paragraph 0182) and discloses clean supernatant is returned to the treatment tank (31), to which water being treated is also added thereto (see US 779 paragraph 0197). Both the introduction tank or the treatment tank (31) is deemed to disclose a reactor vessel configured to receive water containing PFAS).
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 779 is substantially identical to the claimed reactor vessel of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 779 is presumed inherently capable of receiving water containing PFAS.
US 779 discloses a UV light source configured to direct UV light onto water containing PFAS within the reactor vessel (see US 779 figures 2-3 and 9-11; paragraphs 0040, 0128-0129, 0188, 0192-0197, 0227, 0247, 0248, 0259, 0281, 0284).
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 779 is substantially identical to the claimed UV light source of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 779 is presumed inherently capable of directing UV light onto water containing PFAS within the reactor vessel.
US 779 discloses a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor (see US 779 figures 3 & 9-11 and paragraphs 0035, 0064, 0094, 0130-0138, 0176).
As noted above, the claimed “the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor” limitation is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed limitation is understood as the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove PFAS present from the water to be treated.
The materials and steps of US 779 will necessarily selective remove PFAS present from the water to be treated. The materials and steps of US 779 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
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 779 is substantially identical to the claimed selective membrane of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 779 is presumed inherently capable of being selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor.
US 779 discloses a means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport directly into the photoreactor (see US 779 figures 2-5e, 12-16 and paragraphs and paragraphs 0047, 0120, 0143, 0165) (US 779 discloses that after the flocculation-separation step, which is after the membrane filtering treatment step, is returned to the treatment tank (31) (see US 779 figure 3).).
US 779 discloses a means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor (see US 779 paragraph 0165).
In the alternative, if US 779 does not disclose “a means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 779.
US 779 discloses that, after the chemical decomposition step (D), the supernatant can be returned to any step in the treatment method of this invention (see US 779 paragraph 0165).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), because it would assist with treatment or removal of any remaining PFAS in the supernatant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. assist with treatment or removal of PFAS.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), because relocating the return piping to the introduction tank is considered nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts (see M.P.E.P. 2144.04 VI. C.).
Further, US 779 discloses an embodiment of single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 7. In the alternative, if US 779 does not disclose an embodiment of single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 7, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 779. That is, even if US 779 may not disclose a single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 7, US 779 does disclose all of these features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 779 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 7, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 779 intended, i.e. treatment of raw water and/or removal of a contaminant from water.
Hence, US 779 is deemed to disclose a system for PFAS destruction comprising a photoreactor comprising a reactor vessel configured to receive water containing PFAS; and a UV light source configured to direct UV light onto water containing PFAS within the reactor vessel; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor; and a means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor or directly into the photoreactor.
Regarding independent claim 15, US 779 discloses a continuous system for PFAS destruction (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0025-0028, 0029, 0030, 0033-0074, 0099, 0104, 0167-0179 and figures 1-12) comprising a continuous photoreactor (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 figures 3, 9-16 and paragraphs 0025, 0029-0036, 0039-0042, 0045, 0047, 0049-0058, 0071, 0128-0148, 0167-0179, 0189-0197) comprising a reactor vessel configured to receive water containing PFAS (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 figures 3, 9-16 and paragraphs 0025, 0049-0050, 0181-0182, 0186-0187, 0197, 0199); and a UV light source configured to direct UV light onto water containing PFAS within the reactor vessel (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 figures 2-3 and 9-11; paragraphs 0040, 0128-0129, 0188, 0192-0197, 0227, 0247, 0248, 0259, 0281, 0284); a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the continuous photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 figures 3 & 9-11 and paragraphs 0035, 0064, 0094, 0130-0138, 0176); and means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the continuous photoreactor for further transport directly into the continuous photoreactor (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 figures 2-5e, 12-16 and paragraphs and paragraphs 0047, 0120, 0143, 0165).
US 779 discloses means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the continuous photoreactor (see US 779 paragraph 0165).
In the alternative, if US 779 does not disclose “a means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the continuous photoreactor”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 779.
US 779 discloses that, after the chemical decomposition step (D), the supernatant can be returned to any step in the treatment method of this invention (see US 779 paragraph 0165).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), because it would assist with treatment or removal of any remaining PFAS in the supernatant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. assist with treatment or removal of PFAS.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify US 779 to return the supernatant, after the chemical decomposition step, to the introduction tank (11), because relocating the return piping to the introduction tank is considered nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts (see M.P.E.P. 2144.04 VI. C.).
Further, US 779 discloses an embodiment of single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 15. In the alternative, if US 779 does not disclose an embodiment of single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 15, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 779. That is, even if US 779 may not disclose a single embodiment of a treatment apparatus comprising all the elements in the exact manner, as recited in claim 15, US 779 does disclose all of these features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the different embodiments of US 779 into a single embodiment, as recited in claim 15, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as US 779 intended, i.e. treatment of raw water and/or removal of a contaminant from water.
The term “continuous” may be an operation over a period of time without interruption. The period of time for “continuous” is not defined in as-originally filed specification. Thus, the single flow through the treatment apparatus and/or the repeated flow through the treatment apparatus is deemed to be “continuous”.
Hence, US 779 is deemed to disclose a continuous system for PFAS destruction comprising a continuous photoreactor comprising a reactor vessel configured to receive water containing PFAS; and a UV light source configured to direct UV light onto water containing PFAS within the reactor vessel; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the continuous photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of PFAS present in the water containing PFAS after photolysis in the photoreactor; and means for fluid transport of membrane reject formed by the selective membrane to a location upstream of the continuous photoreactor for further transport into the continuous photoreactor or directly into the continuous photoreactor.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 16, US 779discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses the selective membrane comprises a reverse osmosis or nanofiltration membrane (see US 779 paragraphs 0030, 0045, 0131, 0138).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 17, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses a sedimentation system downstream of the selective membrane in line with the membrane reject outflow, before transport of the membrane reject to the photoreactor, as recited in claim 9, and discloses a sedimentation system downstream of the selective membrane in line with the membrane reject outflow, before transport of the membrane reject to the continuous photoreactor, as recited in claim 17 (see US 779 figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0058-0059, 0177-0178, 0181, 0195-0197).
Regarding claim 14 and claim 22, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses the UV light source comprises a lower pressure mercury lamp, medium pressure mercury lamp, or excimer lamp (see US 779 paragraph 0227).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 779
Regarding claim 12 and claim 20, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength between 185 and 254nm (see US 779 paragraphs 0247, 0253, 0281, 0284).
US 779 discloses the UV light has a wavelength of 254 nm (see US 779 paragraphs 0247, 0253, 0281, 0284). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the wavelength disclosed by the US 779 because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I) and would have yielded the predictable result of providing UV light.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 779 as applied to claims 9 and 17, respectively above, and further in view of US 20040188352 A1 (hereinafter US 352).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 18, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9 and claim 17, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses that after the flocculation-separation step and/or after the chemical decomposition step, the supernatant may be returned to an early step in the system (see US 779 figure 3 and paragraph 0165). US 779 discloses the use of a flocculating agent (see US 779 paragraphs 0145-0147) and the use of a peroxide, including calcium peroxide, strontium permanganate, calcium permanganate, and/or magnesium permanganate (see US 779 paragraphs 0150-0153).
US 779 does not disclose a water softener downstream of the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the continuous photoreactor.
US 352 discloses a method and system for water purification by removing contaminants, such as heavy metals, total dissolved solids (TDS), silica, boron, total organic carbons (TOC), colloids, organic contaminants (see US 352 Tables 1 & 2, paragraphs 0019-0020, 0053, 0065-0066). US 352 discloses a method and system comprising UV -TOC reducers, UV disinfection units, reverse osmosis membrane filters, a deionizer, and a water softener (see US 352 figures 1, 3 & 4; and paragraphs 0022, 0025, 0031, 0033-0034-0043, 0048). US 352 discloses “In the reverse osmosis unit source water is divided into two portions, reject portion water and product portion water. In the reverse osmosis unit the reject portion water becomes more concentrated ….” (see US 352 paragraph 0023) and discloses that “hardness components, which originally exist in the concentrate water in small amounts, become increasingly concentrated as the concentrate water is circulated and reused and over time more rapidly deposit in the concentrate chambers or in the electrode chambers to form scales” (see US 352 paragraph 0067; see also US 352 abstract, figures 1, 3, 4 and paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0024-0025, 0036, 0039-0040, 0048-0049). US 352 discloses that the water softener may be a standard reverse flow softener containing a uniform particle size strong acid cation resin, a weak acid cation exchanger containing resin with carboxylic acid groups, an ion exchanger containing suitable macroreticular type aminophosphonic functional groups chelating resin, or an ion exchanger containing suitable macroreticular type iminodiacetic acid functional groups chelating resin (see US 352 paragraphs 0025, 0036). US 352 discloses that the water softener may remove calcium, magnesium, and strontium and softens water containing high total dissolved solids (TDS) (see US 352 paragraphs 0039-0041).
US 352 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. method and system of water purification, water treatment via UV light and/or reverse osmosis, removal of organic contaminants from water.
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 method and system of US 779 to incorporate a water softener, as disclosed in US 352, between the flocculation-separation step or chemical decomposition step and the return of the reject to the to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor or directly into the photoreactor, because it would assist with removal of scale and/or TDS prior to the nanofiltration membrane or reverse osmosis membrane and/or because it assist with preventing fouling/scales interfering with the membrane of the nanofiltration membrane or reverse osmosis membrane.
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 method and system of US 779 to incorporate a water softener, as disclosed in US 352, between the flocculation-separation step or chemical decomposition step and the return of the reject to the to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor or directly into the photoreactor, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. soften water.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 779 as applied to claims 9 and 17, respectively above, and further in view of US 20110094965 A1 (hereinafter US 965).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 18, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9 and claim 17, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses that after the flocculation-separation step and/or after the chemical decomposition step, the supernatant may be returned to an early step in the system (see US 779 figure 3 and paragraph 0165). US 779 discloses the use of a flocculating agent (see US 779 paragraphs 0145-0147) and the use of a peroxide, including calcium peroxide, strontium permanganate, calcium permanganate, and/or magnesium permanganate (see US 779 paragraphs 0150-0153).
US 779 does not disclose a water softener downstream of the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the continuous photoreactor.
US 965 discloses a method and system for the purification of water using a water softener, well-mixed chemical precipitation tank, a clarifier and a single or 2-stage reverse osmosis system (see US 965 claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19; figures 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 15 and paragraphs 0023-0025, 0048-0063). US 852 discloses that the raw water is treated by a first stage RO membrane, well-mixed chemical precipitation tank and a clarifier, and is then softened by an ion exchange softening means followed by the second stage RO membrane or is recycled back to the first stage RO membrane (see US 852 claims 1, 4, 9, 10 13, 17 and 19 and paragraphs 0023-0025, 0048-0054, 0062, 0063, 0072). US 852 discloses that “In order to prevent premature fouling and deposition of scale compounds on the RO or NF membrane surfaces, the raw water is pre-treated by … by using ion exchange softening to remove hardness ions…” (see US 852 paragraph 0004) and discloses that “to enhance the membrane concentrate softening process by removing residual hardness and silica from said chemically softened membrane concentrate, using an ion exchange softening resin, a silica sequestering media or both, to ensure consistent and almost complete removal of said scale-forming compounds from the membrane concentrate, thus preventing deposition on the membrane surface, preventing permeate flux loss and preventing premature cleaning and/or membrane replacement” (see US 852 paragraph 0025).
US 852 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. method and system of water purification, water treatment via reverse osmosis, removal of contaminants from water.
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 method and system of US 779 by adding an ion exchange softener, as disclosed in US 852, between the flocculation-separation step or chemical decomposition step and the return of the reject to the to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor or directly into the photoreactor, because it would assist with preventing premature fouling and deposition of scale compounds on the RO or NF membrane surfaces.
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 method and system of US 779 by adding an ion exchange softener, as disclosed in US 852, between the flocculation-separation step or chemical decomposition step and the return of the reject to the to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor or directly into the photoreactor, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. soften water.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 779 as applied to claims 7 and 15, respectively above, and further in view of The difference between Cross Flow Filtration and Tangential Flow Filtration (retrieved February 17, 2026; published February 11, 2022) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 19, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 discloses does not disclose
NPL discloses “[C]rossflow filtration (CFF), often called tangential flow filtration (TFF), is a filtering technique in which the feed solution flows radially across the filter's surface. Some feed streams will pass through the membrane, while the rest will be concentrated and circulated through the system” (see NPL page 2, first full paragraph). NPL discloses “nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis use crossflow filtration to achieve tighter molecule separations. Both filtration procedures are used to achieve microfiltration or the physical separation of suspended particles and germs from process fluids” (see NPL page 2, third full paragraph) and that cross flow filtration (CFF)/tangential flow filtration (TFF) achieves “Lower energy use means lower running costs; Impurity removal requires fewer chemical additions ; Enhanced production efficiency and quality control’ Depending on the sample size, processes can be adjusted up or down; Membrane housings are available in several coupon sizes” (see NPL page 2, list in lower half of the page).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis processes for purification and water treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a CFF/TFF, as disclosed in NPL, for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, as disclosed in US 779, because US 779 does not provide any guidance of the type of flow filtration for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis and NPL discloses that the CFF/TFF assist with achieving tighter molecule separation as well as assist with achieving “Lower energy use means lower running costs; Impurity removal requires fewer chemical additions ; Enhanced production efficiency and quality control’ Depending on the sample size, processes can be adjusted up or down; Membrane housings are available in several coupon sizes” (see NPL page 2, list in lower half of the page).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a CFF/TFF, as disclosed in NPL, for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, as disclosed in US 779, because US 779 does not provide any guidance of the type of flow filtration for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis and NPL provides guidance on a flow filtration configuration and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter water.
Claims 12, 13, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 779 as applied to claims 7 and 15, respectively above, and further in view of Xin, X., Kim, J., Ashley, D.C. and Huang, C.H., 2023. Degradation and defluorination of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances by direct photolysis at 222 nm. ACS Es&t Water, 3(8), pp.2776-2785 (hereinafter Xin).
Regarding claims 12-13 and claims 20-21, US 779 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 779 does not disclose the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength between 185 and 254nm, as recited in claim 12, and does not disclose the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength of 222nm, as recited in claim 21.
Xin discloses degrading 19 PFAS substances via UV light (see Xin abstract and paragraph 2778/Section 3.1). Xin discloses “[C]ommon UV setups in water treatment employ low-pressure UV (LPUV) lamps emitting primarily at 254 nm or medium-pressure UV lamps (MPUV) emitting in the range of 200–300 nm. (14−17) …, excimer lamps have emerged as a novel alternative UV source that includes a noble gas-halogen dimer generating UV emission when its excited state returns to the ground state. (21) The krypton chloride (KrCl*) excimer lamps emit narrowly at 222 nm which falls in the so-called far-UVC range of 200–230 nm. (22) Compared to conventional LPUV lamps, the KrCl* lamps have several advantages, including higher photon energy due to the shorter wavelength, the absence of mercury, minimal harm to exposed human tissues and eyes, and output stability at cold temperatures. (22−24)” (see Xin page 2776/Section 1.).
Xin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. method and system of water purification, water treatment via UV light, removal of PFAS from water.
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 method and system of US 779 by using a peak wavelength of 254 nm for low pressure UV lamps, a range of 200-300 nm, for medium pressure lamps, or use a krypton chloride excimer lamp having a wavelength of 222nm, as disclosed in NPL, because US 779 does not provide any guidance on the wavelength for the various UV light lamps disclosed (see US 779 paragraph 227) and Xin discloses the wavelengths associated with at least three of the lamps disclosed in US 779.
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 method and system of US 779 by using a peak wavelength of 254 nm for low pressure UV lamps, a range of 200-300 nm, for medium pressure lamps, or use a krypton chloride excimer lamp having a wavelength of 222nm, as disclosed in NPL, because it would assist with degradation of the PFAS compound in water (see NPL page 2776/Section 1; page 2778/Figure 1; pages 2778-2779/Section 3 & Figure 2; page 2781/Section 3.3; page 2782/Section 4).
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 method and system of US 779 by using a peak wavelength of 254 nm for low pressure UV lamps, a range of 200-300 nm, for medium pressure lamps, or use a krypton chloride excimer lamp having a wavelength of 222nm, as disclosed in NPL, because US 779 does not provide any guidance on the wavelength for the various UV light lamps disclosed (see US 779 paragraph 227) and Xin discloses the wavelengths associated with at least three of the lamps disclosed in US 779 and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. emit UV light.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
Li, L., Guo, Y., Ma, S., Wen, H., Li, Y. and Qiao, J., 2024. Association between exposure to per-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and reproductive hormones in human: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Research, 241, p.117553 (hereinafter Li). As evidenced by Li, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is persistent endocrine disrupting chemicals” (see NPL abstract; see also NPL Introduction pages 1-2 & Conclusion page 9).
US 20220402794 A1 (hereinafter US 794). US 794 discloses a method and system of degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in wastewater (see US 794 abstract, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0006]-[0032], [0075]-[0082]). US 794 discloses a PFAS separation stage and a PFAS elimination stage (see US 794 abstract, claim 1, and paragraphs [0006]-[0018]). US 794 discloses that the system comprises a nanofiltration unit(s), reverse osmosis or electrodialysis unit, an ion exchange module(s), an electrochemical PFAS elimination unit, which may include a UV treatment (see US 794 figures 4-5 and paragraphs 0006, 0046-0047, 0055, 0059, 0065, 0075, 0104).
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