DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 February 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdem (WO 2021133363) and in view of Dumitru (PG Pub 20150177078).
Considering claim 1, Erdem (Figure 1) teaches a water treatment apparatus comprising a membrane module (1 + lines 1-5 + page 19) and a device to monitor the integrity of the membrane module (lines 30-35 + page 16); said membrane module comprising a membrane and a housing (14 + lines 30-31 + page 17) for the membrane; and said device comprising a piezoelectric sensor capable (13 + lines 1-5 + page 17) of generating an electrical signal when exposed to vibrations (lines 16-21 + page 17) and a visual indicator comprising a light emitting diode (7 + lines 15-21 + page 17); wherein the visual indicator is electrically connected to the piezoelectric sensors; wherein the electrical signal is used to power the light emitting diode (lines 15-21 + page 17).
However, Erdem does not teach wherein the piezoelectric sensor and the visual indicator are located sufficiently close to the membrane module to sense a vibration from the membrane module; and wherein the visual indicator provides visual indication proportional to the intensity of the vibration from the membrane module.
Dumitru teaches wherein the piezoelectric sensor and the visual indicator are located sufficiently close to the membrane module to sense a vibration from the membrane module (paragraph 0025); and wherein the visual indicator provides visual indication proportional to the intensity of the vibration from the membrane module (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the piezoelectric sensor and the visual indicator are located sufficiently close to the membrane module to sense a vibration from the membrane module; and wherein the visual indicator provides visual indication proportional to the intensity of the vibration from the membrane module into Erdem’s device for the benefit of indicating the strain of the apparatus.
Considering claim 2, Erdem (Figure 1) teaches wherein the device (4 + 6 + 13 + lines 1-15 + page 17) is attached to the housing (14 + lines 30-31 + page 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has found prior art reference Erdem which replaces Kim so therefore those arguments are moot. Regarding the arguments that prior art Dumitru requires an external power source and therefore there is no reason to use Dumitru the examiner argues that Dumitru is only used for a teaching of the visual indicator providing a visual indication proportional to the intensity. Adding that limitation to Erdem does not destroy the device. Furthermore, Erdem teaches the applicant’s limitations. Also, the applicant’s claimed limitation do not specifically forbid the use of an external power source. The claims just require to use of a piezoelectric sensor capable of generating a voltage. Lastly, using a piezoelectric sensor to generate a voltage is not novel. Therefore, using Dumitru in combination with Erdem is proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837