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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-13 remain pending in the application, with claims 1 and 3-8 being examined, and claims 9-13 deemed withdrawn. Claim 2 is canceled.
Examiner’s Note: although Claim 10 has been given the identifier of (Original) in the claim set filed 1/15/2026, it should have been given the identifier of (Withdrawn) as it was directed to an invention non-elected without traverse, as shown in the Response to Election/Restriction filed 10/31/2025. Claim 10 has accordingly been treated as a withdrawn claim. In order to avoid confusion, the Examiner respectfully requests that Claim 10 be designated as a withdrawn claim in future claim sets.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 20, 2025. However, a new claim objection has been raised, as detailed in the Claim Objections section of this instant Office Action.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, Ln. 3 recites, “recording captured membrane identification information”. However, as this identification information is related to the previously recited capturing membrane, it appears that the above limitation should recite, “recording capturing membrane identification information” to be proper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endou et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0168828; hereinafter Endou; already of record) in view of Tanji et al. (Translation of JP Pub. No. 2016-83646; hereinafter Tanji; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Endou discloses a water quality control method for quantitative analysis and/or qualitative analysis of particles contained in water to be analyzed ([0001], [0012]-[0014], see Figs. 1-2, 5). The method comprises:
attaching a particle capturing membrane for capturing particles to a filtration device connected to a flow pipe through which the water to be analyzed flows ([0061]-[0064], see Fig. 5 at filtration device 316 having hollow fiber membrane 304).
Allowing the water to be analyzed to flow from the flow pipe over a predetermined period to the particle capturing membrane attached to the filtration device and capturing the particles contained in the water to be analyzed to form a particle capturing membrane sample ([0061]-[0064], see Fig. 5. See also [0041] for discussion of “filtration time”). and
Performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample of a water flow of a period of interest ([0061]-[0064], see Fig. 5).
After completion of the predetermined period, the particle capturing membrane sample is brought into a sealed state, and the particle capturing membrane sample is left sealed until analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample is performed ([0063]-[0064], holdup liquid remaining in the membrane 304 contains a high concentration of fine particles, which are prevented from flowing out. The membrane is taken out of the device and placed in a clean room, i.e. the room is sealed. Further, a clean room will protect the contents of the clean room from the external environment, i.e. the contents of the clean room are sealed from the external environment. Anyone entering/leaving the clean room is subjected to a decontamination procedure in, e.g., an air shower having an interlock feature to protect the contents of the clean room from being exposed to contaminants of the external environment, thereby maintaining the seal under broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111).
Endou fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis is performed at an arbitrary timing.
However, an alternate embodiment of Endou teaches that filtration is performed using the filter until a given water volume is stored in a filtrate measuring tank, and that the filtration velocity can be increased as desired to decrease the filtration time ([0041]). Therefore, Endou suggests that the timing of the at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis can be adjusted by a user based on the filtration velocity, i.e. arbitrarily. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the primary embodiment of Endou with the teachings of an alternate embodiment of Endou so that the at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis is performed at an arbitrary timing, in order to expedite the analysis as desired by a user.
Further, even if Endou is not considered to teach that the at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis is performed at an arbitrary timing, Tanji, in the analogous field of diagnostic methods and devices of ultrafiltration membranes in ultrapure water apparatuses (Tanji Abstract), teaches performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis regularly or when trouble occurs, such that the range of timing of performing analysis is equivalent to the range of an arbitrary timing (Tanji; Pg. 1 Last Para.-Pg. 2 First Para., Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 First Para.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Endou with the teachings of Tanji so that the at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis is performed at an arbitrary timing, such that a user can analyze the particles in the membrane when desired, such as in the event of potential failure of the membrane (Tanji; Pg. 1 Last Para.-Pg. 2 First Para., Pg. 3 Last Para.-Pg. 4 First Para.).
Regarding claim 7, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 1. Endou further discloses that an integrating flow meter is provided on a downstream side from the filtration device in the flow direction of the water to be analyzed (Endou; [0041], [0061]-[0064], [0078], see Figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 1. Endou further discloses that the flow pipe is a pipe that branches from an ultrapure water producing apparatus to supply ultrapure water to a point of use or a pipe that branches from the pipe (Endou; [0061]-[0064], see Fig. 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endou in view of Tanji as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US Pub. No. 2016/0047730; already of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 1.
Modified Endou fails to explicitly disclose that the particle capturing membrane sample is continuously obtained over a plurality of periods by collecting the particle capturing membrane sample, attaching a new particle capturing membrane to the filtration device, and repeating flow of the water to be analyzed through the filtration device.
Tanaka is in the analogous field of particulate measuring methods for sample water (Tanaka [0001]). Tanaka teaches that a particle capturing membrane sample is continuously obtained over a plurality of periods by collecting the particle capturing membrane sample, attaching a new particle capturing membrane to the filtration device, and repeating flow of the water to be analyzed through the filtration device (Tanaka; [0060]-[0078], particularly at [0070], see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Endou with the teachings of Tanaka so that the particle capturing membrane sample is continuously obtained over a plurality of periods by collecting the particle capturing membrane sample, attaching a new particle capturing membrane to the filtration device, and repeating flow of the water to be analyzed through the filtration device. The motivation would have been to be able to perform measurement on the water to be analyzed continuously, as well as to factor in deterioration of the membrane over time by periodically replacing the membrane.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endou in view of Tanji and Tanaka as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Greenbaum et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0032326; hereinafter Greenbaum; already of record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 3.
Modified Endou fails to explicitly disclose that for each particle capturing membrane sample, a water flowing period for the particle capturing membrane sample is recorded.
Greenbaum is in the analogous field of contaminant detection in water samples (Greenbaum; [0003], [0032]). Greenbaum teaches recording a time period for each of a plurality of water samples (Greenbaum [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Endou with the teachings of Greenbaum so that for each particle capturing membrane sample, a water flowing period for the particle capturing membrane sample is recorded, so that in the event of a contamination issue during a particular time period, the particular membrane sample in question associated with that time period can be subjected to further testing (Greenbaum [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 4, further comprising:
when analysis is required after the water to be analyzed has been used in a manufacturing process of a product, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample of a water flow period that corresponds to the time when the product used the water to be analyzed.
Tanji further teaches using water in a manufacturing process of a product (Tanji Pg. 2 3rd Para.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Endou with the further teachings of Tanji so that the water is used in a manufacturing process of a product, as ultrapure water is used to manufacture semiconductor devices (Tanji Pg. 2 3rd Para.).
Modified Endou fails to explicitly disclose that when analysis is required after the water to be analyzed has been used in a manufacturing process of a product, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample of a water flow period that corresponds to the time when the product used the water to be analyzed.
Greenbaum further teaches that when analysis is required for water at a specific time, performing at least one of quantitative and qualitative analysis of a water sample of a water flow period that corresponds to the water at the specific time (Greenbaum [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Endou with the further teachings of Greenbaum so that when analysis is required after the water to be analyzed has been used in a manufacturing process of a product, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample of a water flow period that corresponds to the time when the product used the water to be analyzed, so that in the event of a contamination issue during a particular time period, the particular membrane sample in question associated with that time period can be subjected to further testing (Greenbaum [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Endou discloses the water quality control method according to claim 5, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Endou fails to explicitly disclose:
recording capturing membrane identification information uniquely conferred to the particle capturing membrane in association with the water flow period, and
when the analysis is required, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample that was recorded in association with the water flow period that corresponds to a time when the product used the water to be analyzed.
Greenbaum further teaches recording identification information uniquely conferred to a sample in association with a water flow period, and when analysis is required, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the sample that was recorded in association with the water flow period that corresponds to a time period of interest (Greenbaum [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Endou with the further teachings of Greenbaum so that the method comprises recording capturing membrane identification information uniquely conferred to the particle capturing membrane in association with the water flow period, and when the analysis is required, performing at least one of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample that was recorded in association with the water flow period that corresponds to a time when the product used the water to be analyzed, so that in the event of a contamination issue during a particular time period, the particular membrane sample in question associated with that time period can be subjected to further testing (Greenbaum [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 10-11 of their Remarks that the prior art of record does not teach that the particle capturing membrane sample is left sealed until analysis of the particle capturing membrane sample is performed. The Applicant argues that Endou’s teaching of placing the membrane sample in a clean room before the membrane sample is analyzed does not mean that the membrane sample is sealed, as a clean room is not sealed, and further that even if a clean room could be considered sealed, that anyone entering a clean room would break any seal in the clean room. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purpose of a clean room is to protect the internal contents of the clean room from any contaminants of the external environment. This protection is related to the clean room being closed from the external environment. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a clean room is sealed. Further, anyone entering/exiting a clean room is subjected to decontamination procedures, such as an air shower in an interlock, that would ensure that the clean room remains protected from any external contaminants. In order for these decontamination procedures to be effective, the internal contents of the clean room must be isolated from the external environment throughout the decontamination procedure, i.e. the contents are sealed. Then, when the decontamination procedure has concluded, the clean room maintains isolation from the external environment, i.e. the clean room is sealed. Therefore, even during entry/exit of a person into/from a clean room, the clean room remains protected from any external contaminants, is closed to the external environment, and is therefore sealed from the external environment, under broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.
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 John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798