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 Objection
Claim 15 recites “the photoreactor”. Applicant is encouraged to amend to recite “the continuous photoreactor” to maintain consistent claim language.
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 7 recites “a selective membrane … selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. The limitation “selective for greater than 99%” is based upon an unknown element “amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water”. That is, the quantity of residual PFAS is an unknown quantity.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove residual PFAS present in the treated water.
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 § 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 7-9, 14-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20220371920 A1 (hereinafter US 920) in view of US 20070119779 A1 (US 779), as evidenced by 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 NPL).
Regarding claim 7, US 920 discloses a method and system of degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in wastewater (see US 920 abstract, paragraphs [0005]-[0020]), which is deemed a system for PFAS destruction.
US 920 discloses a system and “a method for degrading PFAS compounds, comprising: providing a liquid containing one or more PFAS compounds; subjecting the liquid to a pre-treatment; wherein the pre-treatment comprises applying UV light and/or at least one oxidizing agent to the liquid; subjecting the liquid to a treatment, wherein the treatment comprises applying UV light and a sulfite” (see US 920 paragraph [0006]; see also US 920 paragraphs 0015-0016, figures 1-3 and claim 10). US 920 discloses that the system comprises a UV reactor tank for applying the UV light to the liquid to be treated ( see US 920 figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0014], [0016], [0019], [0048]-[0055], [0058]-[0061] and claims 19-21), which is deemed 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; wherein the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS.
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.).
Further, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
US 920 discloses that a catalyst, such as iodide, i.e. sodium iodide, potassium iodide, can be used to improve the PFAS remediation process and that “catalyst such as potassium iodide and sodium iodide can be added to the reactor, e.g., to expedite the PFAS defluorination in the presence of UV and sulfite” (see US 920 paragraph [0059]; see also US 920 paragraphs 0018, 0061). US 920 that the system comprises one or more storage tanks to dispense a chemical additive, such as a catalyst, such as to be in fluid communication with a UV reactor (see US 920 paragraph 0054 and figure 1), which is deemed a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the photoreactor or within the photoreactor.
US 920 does not disclose a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water 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.
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 (see US 779 abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0025]-[0028], [0029], [0033]-[0074], [0099], [0104] and figures 1-12). As evidenced by NPL, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is persistent endocrine disrupting chemicals” (see NPL abstract; see also NPL Introduction pages 1-2 & Conclusion page 9). US 779 discloses that the method comprises the steps of chlorine neutralization step, pre-filtering step, membrane concentrating treatment step, adsorption treatment step, a first photodegradation step, membrane filtering step, a second photodegradation step, flocculation step, chemical decomposition step and a backwash step (see US 779 figures 1-2, paragraphs [0033]-[0052]; see also paragraphs [0247]-[0248]). US 779 discloses that the system and method comprises “a membrane filtering treatment section for separating a permeated liquid through a filter membrane to concentrate the adsorbent adsorbing said hardly decomposable substance” (see US 779 paragraph [0057], see also US 779 paragraphs [0035], [0064], [0094], [0130]-[0138], [0176] and figures 3 & 9-11). US 779 discloses that the “membrane for use in the membrane filtering treatment is not specially limited in kind so long as it has the above separation capability. In view of excellent separation capability and easiness in handling, the membrane is preferably selected, for example, from an ultrafilter membrane (UF membrane), a nano-filter membrane (NF membrane), a microfiltration membrane (MF membrane), a reverse osmosis membrane (RO membrane), or the like” (see US 779 paragraph 0131). US 779 discloses that in the membrane concentrating step, reverse osmosis membrane or nano-filter membrane is used to achieve a step of separating a permeated liquid from hardly-decomposable-substance-containing water (see US 779 paragraphs 0110-0120). Thus, the membrane in the membrane filtering treatment and the membrane in the membrane concentrating step may both be a reverse osmosis membrane or nano-filter membrane (see US 779 paragraphs 0110 and 0131).
US 779 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water treatment method and system for hardly-decomposable-substance-containing water; removal of PFAS, a known endocrine disrupting system from water; and/or water treatment method and system comprising UV light.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a membrane filtering step, as disclosed in US 779, into the method and system of US 920, because it would assist with the removal of impurities, such as endocrine disrupting PFAS compounds in water (see US 779 paragraphs [0247]-[0248]) and/or because it would assist with separating a permeated liquid through a filter membrane to concentrate the adsorbent adsorbing said hardly decomposable substance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a membrane filtering step, as disclosed in US 779, into the method and system of US 920, and reasonably expect the resulting method and/or system to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filtering a fluid.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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; wherein the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS; a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the photoreactor or within the photoreactor; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water (For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove residual PFAS present in the treated water).
US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 or directly into the photoreactor.
US 779 discloses that the method comprises the steps of chlorine neutralization step, pre-filtering step, membrane concentrating treatment step, adsorption treatment step, a first photodegradation step, membrane filtering step, a second photodegradation step, flocculation step, chemical decomposition step and a backwash step (see US 779 figures 1-2, paragraphs [0033]-[0052]; see also paragraphs [0247]-[0248]). US 779 discloses that, after the membrane filtering step, flocculation separation step and/or chemical decomposition step (D), the supernatant can be returned to any step in the treatment method of this invention, including back to the photodegradation step, where the fluid is further treated (see US 779 paragraphs 0047, 0143, 0165, 0197, 0199, 0235 and figures 2 & 3).
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, such that after the UV irradiation step, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a membrane filtering step, followed by a flocculating step, solid-liquid separation step and a chemical decomposition treatment step, and the return pipeline, as disclosed in US 779, because it would assist with removing an solid impurities prior to fluid traveling to a location upstream of the photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor and treatment by the photoreactor.
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, such that after the UV irradiation step, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a membrane filtering step, followed by a flocculating step, solid-liquid separation step and a chemical decomposition treatment step, and the return pipeline, as disclosed in US 779, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. further treatment of fluid/removal of impurities.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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; wherein the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS; a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the photoreactor or within the photoreactor; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water (For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove residual PFAS present in the treated water), 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 920 discloses a method and system of degrading per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in wastewater (see US 920 abstract, paragraphs [0005]-[0020]), which is deemed a continuous system for PFAS destruction.
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”.
US 920 discloses a system and “a method for degrading PFAS compounds, comprising: providing a liquid containing one or more PFAS compounds; subjecting the liquid to a pre-treatment; wherein the pre-treatment comprises applying UV light and/or at least one oxidizing agent to the liquid; subjecting the liquid to a treatment, wherein the treatment comprises applying UV light and a sulfite” (see US 920 paragraph [0006]; see also US 920 paragraphs 0015-0016, figures 1-3 and claim 10). US 920 discloses that the system comprises a UV reactor tank for applying the UV light to the liquid to be treated ( see US 920 figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0014], [0016], [0019], [0048]-[0055], [0058]-[0061] and claims 19-21), which is deemed 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; wherein the photoreactor is configured to flow the water containing PFAS continuously through the reactor vessel during PFAS destruction.
US 920 is deemed to disclose the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS and an amount of iodide since “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” 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.).
US 920 discloses that a catalyst, such as iodide, i.e. sodium iodide, potassium iodide, can be used to improve the PFAS remediation process and that “catalyst such as potassium iodide and sodium iodide can be added to the reactor, e.g., to expedite the PFAS defluorination in the presence of UV and sulfite” (see US 920 paragraph [0059]; see also US 920 paragraphs 0018, 0061). US 920 that the system comprises one or more storage tanks to dispense a chemical additive, such as a catalyst, such as to be in fluid communication with a UV reactor (see US 920 paragraph 0054 and figure 1), which is deemed a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the continuous photoreactor or within the photoreactor.
US 920 does not disclose a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the continuous photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water and a 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.
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 (see US 779 abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0025]-[0028], [0029], [0033]-[0074], [0099], [0104] and figures 1-12). As evidenced by NPL, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is persistent endocrine disrupting chemicals” (see NPL abstract; see also NPL Introduction pages 1-2 & Conclusion page 9). US 779 discloses that the method comprises the steps of chlorine neutralization step, pre-filtering step, membrane concentrating treatment step, adsorption treatment step, a first photodegradation step, membrane filtering step, a second photodegradation step, flocculation step, chemical decomposition step and a backwash step (see US 779 figures 1-2, paragraphs [0033]-[0052]; see also paragraphs [0247]-[0248]). US 779 discloses that the system and method comprises “a membrane filtering treatment section for separating a permeated liquid through a filter membrane to concentrate the adsorbent adsorbing said hardly decomposable substance” (see US 779 paragraph [0057], see also US 779 paragraphs [0035], [0064], [0094], [0130]-[0138], [0176] and figures 3 & 9-11). US 779 discloses that the “membrane for use in the membrane filtering treatment is not specially limited in kind so long as it has the above separation capability. In view of excellent separation capability and easiness in handling, the membrane is preferably selected, for example, from an ultrafilter membrane (UF membrane), a nano-filter membrane (NF membrane), a microfiltration membrane (MF membrane), a reverse osmosis membrane (RO membrane), or the like” (see US 779 paragraph 0131). US 779 discloses that in the membrane concentrating step, reverse osmosis membrane or nano-filter membrane is used to achieve a step of separating a permeated liquid from hardly-decomposable-substance-containing water (see US 779 paragraphs 0110-0120). Thus, the membrane in the membrane filtering treatment and the membrane in the membrane concentrating step may both be a reverse osmosis membrane or nano-filter membrane (see US 779 paragraphs 0110 and 0131).
US 779 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water treatment method and system for hardly-decomposable-substance-containing water; removal of PFAS, a known endocrine disrupting system from water; and/or water treatment method and system comprising UV light.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a membrane filtering step, as disclosed in US 779, into the method and system of US 920, because it would assist with the removal of impurities, such as endocrine disrupting PFAS compounds in water (see US 779 paragraphs [0247]-[0248]) and/or because it would assist with separating a permeated liquid through a filter membrane to concentrate the adsorbent adsorbing said hardly decomposable substance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a membrane filtering step, as disclosed in US 779, into the method and system of US 920, and reasonably expect the resulting method and/or system to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filtering a fluid.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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; wherein the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS; a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the photoreactor or within the photoreactor; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the continuous photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water (For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove residual PFAS present in the treated water).
US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose a 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.
US 779 discloses that the method comprises the steps of chlorine neutralization step, pre-filtering step, membrane concentrating treatment step, adsorption treatment step, a first photodegradation step, membrane filtering step, a second photodegradation step, flocculation step, chemical decomposition step and a backwash step (see US 779 figures 1-2, paragraphs [0033]-[0052]; see also paragraphs [0247]-[0248]). US 779 discloses that, after the membrane filtering step, flocculation separation step and/or chemical decomposition step (D), the supernatant can be returned to any step in the treatment method of this invention, including back to the photodegradation step, where the fluid is further treated (see US 779 paragraphs 0047, 0143, 0165, 0197, 0199, 0235 and figures 2 & 3).
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, such that after the UV irradiation step, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a membrane filtering step, followed by a flocculating step, solid-liquid separation step and a chemical decomposition treatment step, and the return pipeline, as disclosed in US 779, because it would assist with removing an solid impurities prior to fluid traveling to a location upstream of the continuous photoreactor for further transport into the continuous photoreactor and treatment by the continuous photoreactor.
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, such that after the UV irradiation step, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a membrane filtering step, followed by a flocculating step, solid-liquid separation step and a chemical decomposition treatment step, and the return pipeline, as disclosed in US 779, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. further treatment of fluid/removal of impurities.
Hence, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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; wherein the photoreactor produces a treated water having an amount of residual PFAS; a source of iodide configured to provide iodide to the water containing PFAS upstream of the photoreactor or within the photoreactor; a selective membrane in fluid communication with, and downstream of, the continuous photoreactor, the selective membrane selective for greater than 99% of the amount of residual PFAS present in the treated water (For the sake of compact prosecution, the selective membrane is understood as being selective to remove residual PFAS present in the treated water), and a 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the selective membrane comprises a reverse osmosis or nanofiltration membrane (see rejection of claim 7; see US 779 paragraphs 0030, 0045, 0131, 0138).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 17, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 does not disclose 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 rejection of claims 7 and 15). It is noted that by incorporating the flocculating agent/flocculation step and a solid-liquid separating section/step, as disclosed in US 779, one of ordinary skill in the art would be assisted in achieving the removing an solid impurities prior to fluid traveling to a location upstream of the photoreactor/continuous photoreactor for further transport into the photoreactor/continuous photoreactor and treatment by the photoreactor/continuous photoreactor.
Regarding claim 14 and claim 22, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the UV light source comprises a lower pressure mercury lamp (see US 920 paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 12 and claim 20, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength between 185 and 254nm (see US 920 claim 18 and paragraphs 0014, 0043).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9 and claim 17, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose a water softener downstream of the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the 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 that “[I]n 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a water softener, as disclosed in US 352, between the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the photoreactor/continuous photoreactor because it would assist with the removal of scale and/or TDS prior traveling via the return pipeline or because it assist with preventing fouling/scales interfering with the membrane of the nanofiltration membrane or reverse osmosis membrane in later step(s).
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, to incorporate a water softener, as disclosed in US 352, between the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the photoreactor/continuous 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 9 and claim 17, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 965 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 965 claims 1, 4, 9, 10 13, 17 and 19 and paragraphs 0023-0025, 0048-0054, 0062, 0063, 0072). US 965 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 965 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 965 paragraph 0025).
US 965 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, by adding an ion exchange softener, as disclosed in US 965, downstream of the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the photoreactor/continuous photoreactor because it would assist with preventing premature fouling and deposition of scale compounds in the return pipeline and/or on the RO or NF membrane surfaces in later step(s).
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, by adding an ion exchange softener, as disclosed in US 965, downstream of the sedimentation system and before transport of the membrane reject to the photoreactor/continuous 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 2).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 19, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses does not disclose the selective membrane is configured in a cross flow configuration.
NPL 2 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 2 page 2, first full paragraph). NPL 2 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 2 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 2 page 2, list in lower half of the page).
NPL 2 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 2, for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, as disclosed in US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, because US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not provide any guidance of the type of flow filtration for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis and NPL 2 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 2 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 2, for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, as disclosed in US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, because US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not provide any guidance of the type of flow filtration for the selective membrane/nanofiltration or reverse osmosis and NPL 2 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 U US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 claim 12, claim 13, claim 20 and claim 21, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7 and claim 15, respectively. Further, US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not disclose the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength between 185 and 254nm, as recited in claim 12 and claim 20, and US 920 in view of US 779 does not disclose the UV light source emits at a peak wavelength of 222nm, as recited in claim 13 and 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 Xin, because US 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, does not provide any guidance on the wavelength for various UV light lamps disclosed (see US 920 paragraph 0014) and Xin discloses the wavelengths associated with at least three of the lamps that assist with the degrading of an impurity, i.e. PFAS.
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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 Xin, because it would assist with degradation of the PFAS compound in water (see Xin 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 920 in view of US 779, as evidenced by NPL, 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 Xin, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. emit UV light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
The indefiniteness rejection has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The anticipation rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the obviousness rejection(s) have been considered but are moot because Applicant's amendments and remarks do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
In the response, it was argued that US 779 cannot render obvious a continuous system, as recited in independent claim 15, because it “would not be possible in Muramoto, which includes a solid-liquid settling section” (see Response page 7). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
It is noted that claim 17, which is dependent upon independent claim 15, recites “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”. Both the claimed sedimentation system and the solid-liquid settling section of US 779 would achieve the separation of solids from liquids through gravitational forces. Further, 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”.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights