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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 9/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2010/0229899 in IDS) in view of Pavel (US 2003/0230522 in IDS) and Walters et al. (US 2014/0121150).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a method for performing a clean in place process comprising receiving water that has been treated to be considered softened water, reverse osmosis water, or USP purified water ([0024]), flushing industrial equipment with a pre-rinse fluid ([0057]), subsequent to flushing the industrial equipment with the pre-rinse fluid, flushing the industrial equipment with a cleaning fluid comprising at least one cleaning agent and the ultrasoft water ([0023]-[0026] and [0057]), wherein flushing industrial equipment with the cleaning fluid comprises passing the cleaning liquid through the industrial equipment during a cleaning step of a clean-in-place process; and subsequent to flushing the industrial equipment with the cleaning fluid, flushing the industrial equipment with a rinse fluid to rinse the chemical agent from the industrial equipment ([0057] post rinse or final rinse). Anderson teaches a controller that controls a pump for supplying the cleaning fluid to the cleaning process and that various inlets to the system are controlled via pumps and valves ([0039]-[0047]).
It is noted that Anderson teaches the use of reverse osmosis water or USP purified water ([0113]-[0117]) and the use of a reverse osmosis or USP water treatment system would be considered a water conditioner. USP purified water standards require that the calcium content (hardness content) be below 1.0 mg/L (1 ppm) (see attached USP purified water standards table), which is below the 35 ppm amount of hardness specified to be considered ultrasoft water as claimed.
While Anderson teaches the use of water that could be considered as ultrasoft, Anderson fails to explicitly teach that the reverse osmosis water or USP purified water is produced by receiving hard water from a water supply having a hardness greater than 35 ppm, and the hard water is conditioned to reduce hardness to less than 35 ppm. Pavel teaches a method of performing a clean-in-place (CIP) process comprising: receiving water from a supply source having a hardness (hard water) ([0068]-[0071]); conditioning the water from the supply source to reduce the hardness, thereby generating an ultrasoft water having a hardness below a certain threshold due to using an antiscaling device (abstract [0062]) and reverse osmosis membranes ([0089]); flushing industrial equipment with a cleaning fluid comprising at least one cleaning agent and the ultrasoft water ([0100]-[0101]); and subsequent to flushing the industrial equipment with the cleaning fluid, flushing the industrial equipment with a rinse fluid to rinse the chemical agent from the industrial equipment (abstract, [0031], [0061]-[0087], and [0095]-[0102]). As Anderson and Pavel both teach using treated water having low amounts of hardness and other contaminants as the fluid used to treat various industrial equipment, it would have been obvious to provide the Pavel method steps for producing the treated water in Anderson as it is a known way to provide a treated ultrasoft/reverse osmosis water with the specific amounts of hardness claimed as such ultrasoft waters are known to be used in cleaning processes in both Anderson and Pavel with a reasonable expectation of success.
It is noted that Pavel teaches the use of hard water but fails to teach the specific ppm of hardness claimed. Walters teaches that hard water is considered to be water with hardness ions over 100 ppm. As such, one skilled in the art would have expected or found it obvious for the water supply in Pavel to be hard water with a hardness ion concentration in the range claimed.
It is further noted that while Anderson teaches the calcium hardness to be at or below 1 ppm, Pavel also teaches that the total dissolved solids concentration to be around 7 ppm but fails to teach the hardness ion concentration of the ultrasoft water. It is submitted that as Anderson and Pavel teaches the same conditioning step (reverse osmosis) coupled with an anti-scaling device (Pavel) that is designed to remove hardness ions, one skilled in the art would expect the same results due to the same streams being treated by the same method, or it would have been obvious to provide enough treatment steps in series in order to ensure the desired hardness ion concentration.
Anderson teaches that a detergent and surfactant are used should but fails to state the specific quantities. Walthers teaches that for cleaning fluids/detergent use solutions, the cleaning chemicals would typically range from 1,000 – 40,000 ppm (approximately 0.1-4%) ([0087]). While no specific concentration ranges are provided for the concentration, one skilled in the art would have found that it would have been obvious to provide the concentrations claimed as it is merely finding workable or optimal concentrations especially in view of known cleaning fluid/detergent use solutions that overlap the claimed water percentage in a cleaning fluid (Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
In regards to the specific function of the controller claimed, it is submitted that the controller at some point would have to receive a request to initiate the cleaning procedure or the process would not start. Further, Anderson teaches various pumps and valves that are used as part of operating the system but only teaches the controller being used to operate one pump and not the other various valves in the system. It is noted that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a controller to control the various pumps and valves in the system rather than have each one be manual controlled as automating an activity is an obvious matter (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). This aligns with what is known in the art as Pavel specifically teaches a controller used to operate various pumps and valves in their cleaning system ([0020], [0022], and [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches that the cleaning fluid is mixed with the ultrasoft water ([0023]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson teaches the use of reverse osmosis (abstract and [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, see the hardness ion concentration analysis in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson and Pavel both teaches that the water can be from a municipal water supply (Anderson [0024] and Pavel [0097] and [0141]).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that Anderson teaches different cleaning agents, such as detergents, being used with no mention of a water hardness control agent and therefore meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Anderson teaches the use of an acidic or alkaline detergent (sodium hydroxide) in order to aid in cleaning ([0024] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 for analysis on optimizing the concentrations especially when the claimed concentrations are within known cleaning fluid/detergent fluid ranges.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 1 above for analysis about the ultrasoft water hardness ion concentration.
Regarding claim 11 and 13, Anderson teaches that the various rinse waters are ultrasoft water ([0024] and [0057]).
Regarding claims 14-15, as discussed in claim 1 above, Anderson teaches that the cleaning fluid is cycled through the industrial process multiple times ([0057]) and that the cleaned industrial equipment would include pipes, vessels, and fittings.
Regarding claim 16, Anderson teaches that the process is applied to beverage and food equipment ([0017]).
Regarding claim 25, it is submitted that one skilled in the art would recognize that the degree of cleaning is based on the contact time between the cleaning fluid and the surface being cleaned. A short time contact time would result in a lower percentage of the soil/contaminant being cleaned while a longer time would result in a higher percentage being removed. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the flushing step for as long as desired until the desired removal percentage is achieved. Additionally, the basis for the claim is Fig. 2, which provides a graph equating the grains of hardness to cleaning effectiveness. Anderson teaches that the amount of hardness in the water used to make the cleaning solution is below 1 grain (1 ppm is approximately 1/17.1 grain of hardness). As the hardness concentration is below the threshold for 82% removal of contaminants according to Fig. 2, one skilled in the art would expect similar results even if not explicitly stated based on the findings of Applicant.
It is noted that Anderson teaches that the clean in place can be applied to a wide variety of industries and equipment ([0003]) that overlap the industries taught by Applicant (compare [0004] of published specification) but fails to explicitly state that dirt/soil is removed. Walthers teaches that in flushing/contacting surfaces of various equipment with a cleaning fluid, soil is a contaminant that is known to be removed during the cleaning process ([0005]-[0006]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the Anderson cleaning/flushing process to specifically remove soil to the degree claimed by increasing the contact/flushing time between the cleaning fluid and surfaces to be cleaned with the USP water having the taught percentages/grains of hardness.
Regarding claim 26, as can be seen from Fig. 1, Anderson teaches that the cleaning fluid is pumped and provided to flush the cleaning equipment and then the fluid is recirculated back to the tank via line (32) and then used for further flushing/cleaning of the industrial equipment. As discussed above, the controller would be used to control the pumps and valves to provide the desired flow rates.
Regarding claim 27, as discussed above, the controller would control the valves and pumps in the system and modified Anderson teaches that the incoming water is conditioned to provide the ultrasoft pure water to the cleaning process.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2010/0229899 in IDS) in view of Pavel (US 2003/0230522 in IDS) and Walters et al. (US 2014/0121150) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2004/0182764).
Regarding claim 24, while Anderson teaches that the heat exchangers are provided in the system, Anderson does not explicitly state that the heat exchangers are part of the cleaned industrial equipment. Furukawa teaches that it is known for the heat exchangers in production systems to be sterilized and cleaned with pure water and cleaning solutions in order to remove any build-up or other contaminants from inside the heat exchanger ([0055]-[0077]). As Anderson teaches that the clean in place process is used to clean various industrial vessels, it would have been obvious to apply the Anderson process to a specific industrial vessel of a heat exchanger in order to remove any contaminants, such as degraded products, from within the heat exchanger as using pure water and cleaning solutions is an already known way to clean this specific type of industrial equipment vessels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the above rejection has been modified to address the inclusion of a controller operating the system to perform the claimed method.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Anderson to arrive at the claimed invention. As discussed above, there is sufficient reason to modify the Anderson process as it amounts to steps for providing the desired USP/RO water from various sources as well as optimization of concentration of the cleaning solution. Further, one skilled in the art would find that Anderson either implies use of a controller to control the various pumps and valves in the system, or one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a controller as claimed in order to automate the cleaning process consistent with what is known in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777