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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the addition of new claims 13 and 14. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments and arguments presented, the prior art rejections have been reconsidered and newly framed rejections relying upon different combinations of prior art are set forth below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to the previously applied combinations are moot with respect to the rejections presently made. Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly recited limitation “in operation” have also been considered. The interpretation of this limitation for purposes of examination is set forth below, and the clarity of the limitation is separately addressed under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Applicant’s arguments concerning newly added claims 13 and 14 have likewise been considered; those claims are rejected over newly applied prior art for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
With respect to claims 1 and 2, the recitation of water treatment members “in operation” is interpreted as identifying water treatment members that are in use or in service in the water treatment device prior to the recited periodic replacement or remounting, and does not require the water treatment members to remain actively performing water treatment during the physical act of removal, replacement, or remounting.
For claims 13 and 14, the expression “each grouped water treatment member treated as a unit” is interpreted as requiring each resulting group of water treatment members to be treated as a unit for purposed of the recited replacement or mounting of the grouped water treatment members. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which describes grouping membrane modules according to life expectancy and mounting the resulting groups as groups.
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 2, 10-11 and 14 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 2 recites in the preamble: “a water treatment device on which a plurality of water treatment members is mounted” but the body subsequently recites: “managing the plurality of water treatment devices…”. No “plurality of water treatment devices” has previously been introduced in claim 2. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recited management method requires management of a single water treatment device or a plurality of water treatment devices. Claims 10, 11 and 14 depend from claim 2 and therefore include the same indefinite limitation.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Fujii (JP-2005240776-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below.).
Regarding claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a method for managing a plurality of water treatment devices on each of which a plurality of water treatment members is mounted (Kitagawa p. 2 claims 1-4 and p. 28 describing a household water treatment apparatus using filter unit 10; p.29 “it is possible to provide three or more filters instead of two”), the method comprising managing the plurality of water treatment members in operation (Kitagawa p. 32 “in-use filter information 110” identifying the first and second filters “in use”), wherein history information being updatable as needed (Kitagawa p. 32 describing receipt and storage of “information on the performance change of the in-use filter” and operating-condition information; see also claim 7, accumulation of performance change information); and estimating information indicative of the remaining useful condition or replacement timing of each water treatment member based on the history information (Kitagawa p. 33 “the current performance level of the filter unit in use or each filter is estimated” and “it is possible to estimate the replacement timing of the filter unit in use”).
Kitagawa does not expressly teach performing the life expectancy estimation by controlling a computer to perform statistical processing or an artificial intelligence algorithm, nor does Kitagawa expressly disclose performing external life expectancy homogenization processing to replace corresponding water treatment members in operation with each other among a plurality of water treatment devices at a predetermined period so that other water treatment members each having a life expectancy within a predetermined range are mounted in an identical device.
Tanaka teaches the statistical life-expectancy processing missing from Kitagawa. Tanaka discloses a computer-based parts management device in which plant operating information is store as history information for individually identified parts, and a calculation means performs regression analysis based on the component history information to obtain a life-prediction formula and calculate a predicted life value for the component (Tanaka claim 1; pars. [0010]-[0012]). More particularly, Tanaka retrieves the historical data of previously discard components of the same type, uses the operating time at which the component reaches the end of its life as the objective variable, and uses operating/load history as explanatory variables in a multiple-regression analysis to generate the life-prediction equation (Tanaka par. [0027-0030]. Tanaka therefore teaches computerized statistical processing of historical information from previously life-expired members to generate a life-expectancy model and apply that model to individual members.
Fujii teaches the external homogenization missing from Kitagawa and Tanaka. Fujii concerns life-managed components used in a plurality of gas-turbine units and expressly teaches rotating interchangeable components among multiple units and even among different power plants, using remaining-life information to determine their placement. Fujii p. 3 teaches that the parts to be shared are arranged in order of remaining life and regrouped so that “parts having almost the same remaining life” are managed and operated as one group. Fujii provides the specific example of taking 100 parts associated with five gas turbines, arranging them according to remaining life, and recreating five groups of twenty such that the parts within each resulting group have aligned remaining lives. Fujii further teaches repeating the regrouping as needed, such as at each inspection, and expressly gives an example in which all target parts are rearranged and regrouped once every three years so that their service lives are equalized. After the rotation plan is established, it is distributed to the participating power plants and the parts are actually moved according to the plan. Thus, Fujii teaches periodically replacing corresponding in-service life-managed members among plural devices so that members having similar remaining lives are collected in the same device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tanaka’s statistical life-prediction technique and Fujii’s remaining-life-based component rotation to Kitagawa’s replaceable water-treatment filters. Kitagawa already recognizes that individual in-use filters deteriorate over time and uses their operating and performance histories to predict replacement timing. Tanaka provides a known statistical technique for obtaining a more accurate predicted component life from such historical operating data, while Fujii teaches using the resulting remaining life information to periodically regroup interchangeable components among multiple devices so that components of similar remaining life are operated together. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the accuracy of filter replacement planning, reduce premature disposal of still-usable members, simplify maintenance scheduling, and reduce interruptions caused by members within the same device reaching end of life at substantially different time. The combination merely applies known statistical life prediction and known remaining-life-based fleet management of Kitagawa’s known replaceable water-treatment members, with the predictable result of more efficient utilization and more uniform remaining life within each water treatment device.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka and Fujii discloses or renders obvious the management method for the plurality of water treatment devices according to claim 1, wherein the water treatment member is a membrane module (Kitagawa p. 19 par. 7 “reverse osmosis membrane”), and the water treatment device is a membrane unit on which the membrane module is mounted (Kitagawa expressly teaches filter units containing multiple filters and identifies the second filter as a filter employing a reverse-osmosis membrane, while further teaching that three or more filters may be provided depending upon the application, p. 29).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A) and Fujii (JP-2005240776-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US-20140012527-A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka and Fujii discloses or renders obvious the management method for the plurality of water treatment devices according to claim 1. Tanaka further teaches storing a history for each individually identified component and generating a life-prediction model from the historical information of previously life-expired/discarded components using multiple regression, and then applying the resulting equation to the operating history of the individual component whose life is being predicted.
The combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka and Fujii does not, however, expressly establish that the history information used for the individual member includes the claimed manufacturing history in addition to usage history.
Yamamoto teaches managing machine elements using identification information individually associated with the element, wherein the identification information expressly includes one or more of “the time when the machine element was manufacture, a production lot of the machine element, and a production history of the machine element” (Yamamoto claim 1, par, [0015]). Yamamoto additionally teaches obtaining use information such as operating time and use conditions and employing a determining equation to calculate the remaining life of the particular machine element. Thus, Yamamoto expressly recognizes that both manufacturing-related information and subsequent usage information associated with the particular component are relevant to individualized remaining-life determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Yamamoto’s manufacturing history information among the component-history variables maintained and evaluated by the life-prediction system of Kitagawa and Tanaka. Tanaka already teaches generating a statistical life model from historical component data and applying it to individual components, and Yamamoto teaches that manufacturing time, production lot, and production history are component specific information relevant to remaining life evaluation. Incorporating such known component specific manufacturing information into Tanaka’s history-based model would predictably account for life variation attributable to manufacturing differences and thereby improve the accuracy of the individualized life prediction, while retaining the usage-history information already taught by Kitagawa and Tanaka.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A) and Fujii (JP-2005240776-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura (US20050117918-A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka and Fujii discloses or renders obvious the management method for the plurality of water treatment devices according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of water treatment members are grouped based on the life expectancy of each water treatment member estimated by the life expectancy estimation processing (Fujii translation page 3 “by performing grouping based on the concept of remaining life, it is possible to manage and operate parts having almost the same remaining life as one group”), and, with each grouped water treatment member treated as a unit (Fujii p. 4 “the plan is replaced in parts group units or individual part units”; also “the parts can be replaced in units of parts groups”), water treatment members belonging to a group are replaced among the plurality of water treatment devices such that the water treatment members of the equal life expectancy group are mounted in an identical water treatment device (Fujii p. 3 “By regrouping the same parts used in many gas turbines and many power plants into the optimal combination as needed (for example, every inspection), the remaining life of all parts in the group is made uniform”; Fujii p. 4 “the regrouped parts group is arranged in each unit” and “Based on this movement plan, parts are moved and assembled”).
The combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka and Fujii does not explicitly disclose that the water treatment members belonging to the group having an equal life expectancy, such that the members of an equal life expectancy group are mounted in an identical water treatment device.
Kimura is directed to managing reusable components in a multi-component apparatus so that their remaining lives are coordinated and teaches the missing concept of selecting components having the same remaining life. In particular, Kimura teaches that when one component expires while another component remains in service, “a drum having the same remaining life as the second toner cartridge is selected as a second drum” (Kimura par. [0146]), thereby making the remaining lives of the components uniform. Kimura further teaches that “a plurality of parts can be replaced or taken out at the same time when the remaining lives thereof are the same” (Kimura par. [0167]), expressly recognizing the maintenance advantage obtained by matching components having equal remaining lives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kimura’s teaching of selecting components having the same remaining life when forming the remaining life groups taught by Fujii in the method of Kitagawa as modified by Tanaka and Fujii. Fujii expressly identifies the problem caused when members of a group have substantially different remaining lives, usable members may be prematurely discarded when the shorted-lived member determines the life of the group, and therefore teaches a known refinement directed to the same maintenance objective by selecting members having the same remaining life, thereby permitting multiple members to be replaced together and reducing maintenance and recycling work. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to use Kimura’s same remaining life selection criterion when suitable components were available in Fujii’s remaining-life-based grouping process, because doing so would further Fujii’s expressly stated objective of aligning the remaining lives within each group and would predictably permit the grouped members to reach replacement together, thereby reducing premature disposal and simplifying maintenance.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamashita (JP2014011060A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Gilron (US-8632682-B2).
Regarding claim 2, Kitagawa discloses a method for managing a water treatment device on which a plurality of water treatment members is mounted (Kitagawa p. 2 claims 1-4 and p. 28 describing a household water treatment apparatus using filter unit 10; p.29 “it is possible to provide three or more filters instead of two”), the method comprising: managing water treatment members in operation (Kitagawa p. 32 “in-use filter information 110” identifying the first and second filters “in use”) wherein history information of each water treatment member is updatable as needed (Kitagawa p. 32 describing receipt and storage of “information on the performance change of the in-use filter” and operating-condition information; see also claim 7, accumulation of performance change information), and estimating information indicative of the condition and replacement timing of an individual water treatment member based on the history information (Kitagawa p. 33 “the current performance level of the filter unit in use or each filter is estimated” and “it is possible to estimate the replacement timing of the filter unit in use”).
Kitagawa does not expressly teach estimating the life expectancy with statistical processing or an artificial intelligence algorithm, nor does Kitagawa expressly teach performing, based on the estimated life expectancy, internal life expectancy homogenization processing to mount at a predetermined period a water treatment member in operation having a relatively long life expectancy at a high-processing-load position and a water treatment member in operation having a relatively short life expectancy at a low-processing-load position in the identical water treatment device.
Tanaka teaches the statistical life-expectancy processing missing from Kitagawa. Tanaka discloses a computer-based parts management device in which plant operating information is store as history information for individually identified parts, and a calculation means performs regression analysis based on the component history information to obtain a life-prediction formula and calculate a predicted life value for the component (Tanaka claim 1; pars. [0010]-[0012]). More particularly, Tanaka retrieves the historical data of previously discard components of the same type, uses the operating time at which the component reaches the end of its life as the objective variable, and uses operating/load history as explanatory variables in a multiple-regression analysis to generate the life-prediction equation (Tanaka par. [0027-0030]. Tanaka therefore teaches computerized statistical processing of historical information from previously life-expired members to generate a life-expectancy model and apply that model to individual members.
Yamashita teaches periodically relocating members according to relative remaining condition and relative processing load. Yamashita teaches that deterioration varies depending upon the installation position of a replaceable module because, for example, modules positioned near a heating element or at locations having different cooling conditions deteriorate at different rates (Yamashita p. 2). Yamashita therefore teaches periodically replacing the positions of the modules to equalize deterioration (Yamashita p. 5; Figs. 6A-6B) and detects a first module having relatively greater deterioration and a second module having relatively less deterioration, after which the first and second modules are exchanged between their respective positions (Yamashita, claim 1; Figs. 6A-6B). Yamashita further teaches that the rearrangement may occur at a predetermined cycle, for example every one to three years (Yamashita, discussion on p.10 following the SOH rearrangement embodiment).
Gilron reinforces Yamashita’s position-dependent-load teaching in the particular field of membrane water treatment. Gilron teaches a plurality of membrane modules operating in successive flow stages and periodically repositioning membrane modules between those stages (Gilron claim 1). Gilron specifically teaches repositioning blocks receiving the “most concentrated process fluid” to the position receiving the “least concentrated process fluid” in order to reduce precipitation and fouling (Gilron col. 5). Gilron therefore directly teaches that positions within a membrane-treatment device impose different processing loads and that operating membrane modules are periodically exchanged between higher and lower positions to distribute that deterioration burden.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tanaka’s predicted remaining life when carrying out the position-management techniques of Yamashita and Gilron in Kitagawa’s multi-filter water-treatment device. Yamashita teaches the general maintenance principle of matching healthier/longer-life components to the positions producing greater deterioration, and Gilron demonstrates that the very same problem occurs in membrane water treatment and is addressed by periodically repositioning operating membrane modules between stages of different processing severity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to place a membrane member having greater predicted remaining life at the higher-load position and a member having less predicted remaining life at the lower-load position so that the imposed load tends to equalize their remaining lives, thereby reducing premature failure of the short-lived member and extending the interval before maintenance of the device as a whole.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron discloses or renders obvious the management method for managing the water treatment device according to claim 2, wherein the water treatment member is a membrane module (Kitagawa examples of the treatment members are “reverse osmosis membrane”, “UF membrane”), and the water treatment device is a membrane unit on which the membrane module is mounted (Gilron claim 1 “ a tapered flow pressure driven arrangement containing a plurality of membrane modules”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamashita (JP2014011060A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Gilron (US-8632682-B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US-20140012527-A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron discloses or renders obvious the management method for managing the water treatment device according to claim 2, wherein the history information includes a usage history that is managed for each water treatment member (Tanaka, claim 1), and the life expectancy estimation processing is to perform learning processing on previously acquired history information of a plurality of water treatment members until occurrence of a failure to generate a life expectancy estimation model representing a relationship between individual history information and a life expectancy, and apply history information of an individual water treatment member to the life expectancy estimation model to estimate the life expectancy (Tanaka claim 1, “calculating the life prediction formula by regression analysis based on” the “the history information of the component”; claim 2 “the regression analysis sets an objective variable to an operation time of a component which is a past life value”; see also Tanaka par. [0014]).
The combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron does not explicitly disclose that the history information used in the life expectancy estimation additionally includes a manufacturing history that is managed for each water treatment member. Although Tanaka teaches extensive usage and operating history associated with individual components and statistically relates that history to component life, Tanaka does not expressly identify manufacturing history as part of the information used in its life prediction.
Yamamoto is directed to determining the remaining life of individually identifiable elements and expressly teaches maintaining manufacturing information for each individual element. Specifically, Yamamoto par. [0059] teaches that the identification information associated with a machine element includes “the time when the machine element was manufactured, its production lot and its production history”. Yamamoto par. [0022] further teaches using component usage history in remaining-life evaluation including “use time, use environment or use conditions” such that “it is possible to calculate the remaining life more reliably”. Yamamoto therefore teaches managing both manufacturing-related history and subsequent usage history for an individually identified component in connection with determining the component’s remaining life.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Yamamoto’s manufacturing history information among the history information used in the life expectancy estimation of Kitagawa as modified by Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron. Yamamoto expressly recognizes that “even machine elements of the same kind may have different properties due to different manufacturing conditions, and thus may not be diagnosed under the same standard” (Yamamoto, par. [0002]), and further teaches that the optimum remaining life determining equation may vary not only with the kind of component but also with its manufacturer or production lot (Yamamoto par. [0068]). This, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to supplement Tanaka’s usage-history-based statistical life prediction with Yamamoto’s known manufacturing history information in order to account for component-to-component differences attributable to manufacturing conditions and thereby obtain a more reliable and individualized remaining-life estimate. Such a modification would merely use known component-specific historical information for its expressly taught purpose of improving remaining-life determination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamashita (JP2014011060A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Gilron (US-8632682-B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fujii (JP-2005240776-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron discloses or renders obvious the management method for managing the water treatment device according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of water treatment members are mounted, in a descending order of the life expectancies, from a high processing load position to a low-processing load position (Yamashita claim 5 determines the relative deterioration of the replaceable modules and the relative deterioration associated with their installation positions and assigns the modules to positions according to the two ordered lists so that a module having a relatively more remaining useful life is place at a position imposing relatively greater deterioration, while a module having relatively less remaining useful life is placed at a position imposing relatively less deterioration). Gilron further establishes in the particular field of membrane water treatment that membrane modules are positioned in successive processing stages and are “periodically replacing one or more of the membrane modules belonging to said consecutive flow stage with one or more membrane modules belonging to the previous flow stage” thereby subjecting different module positions to different processing/fouling conditions (Gilron claim 1).
The combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita and Gilron does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of water treatment members are first grouped based on the life expectancy of each water treatment member estimated by the life expectancy estimation processing, and with each grouped water treatment member treated as a unit.
Fujii is directed to operation planning for interchangeable, life-managed components used among a plurality of gas turbine units and teaches the missing grouping and group-unit concepts. Fujii claim 2 expressly teaches “arranging parts in order of remaining lifetime at a certain time and regrouping the entire parts to be shared” so that the remaining lives of the parts within a group are aligned. Fujii p. 2 further explains that “by arranging all the sharing target parts in the order of remaining life” and “performing regrouping, the parts remaining life in one group is aligned”. More specifically, Fujii’s regrouping process causes the server to arrange “the components in the order of remaining lifetime” and then provides that “Parts are regrouped by the number of parts for one gas turbine in order of increasing or decreasing remaining life” (Fujii p. 4). Fujii p. 4 additionally teaches treating the resulting groups as units, expressly stating that “parts can be replaced in units of parts groups (in other words, the parts can be replaced in the whole parts group in the rotation plan)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fujii’s remaining-life-grouping technique to the plurality of life-managed members positioned according to Kitagawa, Tanaka, Yamashita, and Gilron. The base combination already teaches determining the relative remaining lives of individual members and positioning longer-life members at higher-load positions and short-life members at lower-load positions to reduce nonuniform deterioration. Fujii expressly teaches that individually life-managed components may be sorted by remaining life, regrouped in increasing or decreasing remaining-life order, and thereafter handled as entire groups, explaining that such regrouping makes subsequent life management easier and permits the individual parts to be used efficiently through their service lives (Fuji p. 2). One of ordinary skill would therefore have been motivated to use Fujii’s group-based implementation when applying the life-versus-load placement strategy of the base combination to a larger plurality of members, thereby simplifying placement and maintenance while retaining the same known relationship between remaining life and processing load. Once the members are grouped and ordered according to remaining life as expressly taught by Fujii, mounting the longer life group at the higher-processing-load position and successively shorter-life groups toward lower-processing-load positions would be the predictable group-level application of the individual-member arrangement already taught by Yamashita and Gilron.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Fujii (JP-2005240776-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamashita (JP2014011060A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 5, Kitagawa discloses a replacement method for a water treatment member that serves as a replacement method for a water treatment member that is mounted on each of a plurality of water treatment devices (Kitagawa p. 15 household water treatment apparatus having replaceable first and second filters 11, 12; p. 34 “exchange filter information” using accumulated information), the method comprising: history information of each water treatment member (Kitagawa p.12 par. 4), the history information being updatable as needed (Kitagawa p. 32 describing receipt and storage of “information on the performance change of the in-use filter” and operating-condition information; see also claim 7, accumulation of performance change information); and wherein a need for replacement of a water treatment member is determined (Kitagawa p. 34 estimates the condition and replacement timing of the individual filter from the accumulated performance information; p. 33 “the current performance level of the filter unit in use or each filter is estimated and the information on the performance and the in-use filter information 110, it is possible to estimate the replacement timing of the filter unit”).
Kitagawa does not expressly disclose controlling a computer to perform life expectancy estimation processing to estimate, with statistical processing or an artificial intelligence algorithm, a life expectancy of each water treatment member based on history information. Kitagawa further does not explicitly disclose, when need for replacement of a water treatment member in a first water treatment device arises, removing from a second water treatment device another water treatment member having a life expectancy within a predetermined range from the life expectancy of the member that needs to be replaced, mounting the other water treatment member on the first water treatment device, and mounting a new water treatment member on the second water treatment device.
Tanaka is directed to management and replacement planning of life-managed interchangeable components and teaches statistical life-expectancy processing missing from Kitagawa. Tanaka teaches inputting plant information to “create history information of the parts” and calculating “the life prediction formula by regression analysis based on” the component history information, followed by “calculating the life prediction value of the component from the calculated life prediction formula and the history information of the component” (Tanaka claim 1 pars. [0010-0012]). Tanaka further teaches multiple regression in which the objective variable is “an operation time of a component which is a past life value” and the explanatory variables include peak operating time, number of starts and stops, and number of trips (Tanaka claim 2). The resulting predicted life is then used for replacement planning (“creating a parts replacement plan material based on a scheduled inspection date” (Tanaka claim 1).
Fujii is directed to improving utilization of life-managed interchangeable components across a plurality of separate units and power plants and teaches the missing cross-device selection and transfer based upon remaining life. Fujii teaches that “parts can be shared by rotating parts between the power plants” and that information regarding “how much remaining life” each part has is integrated so that “the optimal parts are distributed to each power plant” (Fujii p. 2). Fujii further teaches grouping according to remaining life such that “parts having almost the same remaining life” are managed together and that the same parts used in many gas turbines and power plants are regrouped into an “optimal combination” (Fujii p. 3). Fujii expressly teaches that, after an operation plan is created, “the parts are moved between the power plants based on the parts operation plan” and further recognizes replacement occasioned by failure, stating that “if parts need to be lent suddenly due to parts breakage, etc., search for alternative parts from abundant inventory consisting of the entire shared group” (Fujii p. 3). Fujii therefore teaches selecting another interchangeable member according to remaining life from a different device or plant and transferring that member between devices when replacement is required.
Yamashita teaches the final claimed replacement sequence in which, after the selected existing member is removed from the second device and mounted on the first device, a new member is mounted on the second device in the position vacated by the transferred member. In particular, Yamashita teaches that when a module has failed, replacement need not consist merely of putting the new module directly in the failed module’s position. Rather, when “replacing any of the battery modules with a new battery module, the new battery module is disposed at the first position, and the first battery module is disposed at the position of the battery module to be replaced” (Yamashita claim 2). The detailed embodiment similarly teaches that when a module at M4 fails, “a new battery module is placed in M1” and “the batter module … originally placed in M1 is placed in the position of M4” (Yamashita p. 9) explaining that the existing modules can thereby be rearranged “using the fact that the battery module needs to be replaced” and that “the work efficiency can be improved” (Yamashita p.9) teaching using a replacement event to move an existing serviceable member into the position of the member requiring replacement while installing the new member at the position vacated by the moved member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the statistical life-prediction technique of Tanaka and the cross-device remaining-life-based component sharing of Fujii to the replaceable water treatment members of Kitagawa, and further to employ Yamashita’s known replacement sequence when making such a transfer. Kitagawa already recognizes the desirability of monitoring filter performance and determining when replacement is appropriate; Tanaka expressly teaches that statistical life prediction permits replacement timing to be “accurately” predicted and components to be managed efficiently; Fujii expressly teaches sharing life-managed components between different plants to reduce disposal loss, delay purchase of new parts and make effective use of used and idle parts; and Yamashita teaches that a required replacement provides an efficient opportunity to relocate an existing member while placing a new member in the position vacated by that existing member. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to select, based on the remaining-life information taught by Fujii, a suitably life-matched member from a second Kitagawa water treatment device when a member of a first device required replacement, transfer that member to the first device, and install the new member in the resulting vacancy in the second device. This would predictably make more effective use of members having remaining service life, reduce premature disposal, and use the replacement event efficiently, consistent with the express maintenance objectives of the cited references.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Fujii and Yamashita discloses the replacement method for the water treatment member according to claim 5, wherein the water treatment member is a membrane module (Kitagawa p. 19 par. 7 “reverse osmosis membrane”), and each water treatment device is a membrane unit on which the membrane module is mounted (Kitagawa expressly teaches filter units containing multiple filters and identifies the second filter as a filter employing a reverse-osmosis membrane, while further teaching that three or more filters may be provided depending upon the application, p. 29).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Fujii (JP-2005240776-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamashita (JP2014011060A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US-20140012527-A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Fujii and Yamashita discloses or renders obvious the replacement method for the water treatment member according to claim 5. Tanaka further teaches storing a history for each individually identified component and generating a life-prediction model from the historical information of previously life-expired/discarded components using multiple regression, and then applying the resulting equation to the operating history of the individual component whose life is being predicted.
The combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Fujii and Yamashita does not, however, expressly establish that the history information used for the individual member includes the claimed manufacturing history in addition to usage history.
Yamamoto teaches managing machine elements using identification information individually associated with the element, wherein the identification information expressly includes one or more of “the time when the machine element was manufacture, a production lot of the machine element, and a production history of the machine element” (Yamamoto claim 1, par, [0015]). Yamamoto additionally teaches obtaining use information such as operating time and use conditions and employing a determining equation to calculate the remaining life of the particular machine element. Thus, Yamamoto expressly recognizes that both manufacturing-related information and subsequent usage information associated with the particular component are relevant to individualized remaining-life determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Yamamoto’s manufacturing history information in the component history used by Tanaka’s life-prediction model. Since Yamamoto teaches that production-specific information distinguishes individual components and is relevant to their remaining-life evaluation, incorporating such information together with the already-used operational history would predictably account for component-to-component manufacturing variation and improve the accuracy of the resulting life estimate. Accordingly, the combined teachings render obvious managing both manufacturing and usage histories and using those histories in the statistical life-expectancy model for the replacement method.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kitagawa, Tanaka, Fujii, Yamashita and Yamamoto discloses or renders obvious the replacement method for the water treatment member according to claim 6, wherein the water treatment member is a membrane module, (Kitagawa p. 19 par. 7 “reverse osmosis membrane”), and each water treatment device is a membrane unit on which the membrane module is mounted (Kitagawa expressly teaches filter units containing multiple filters and identifies the second filter as a filter employing a reverse-osmosis membrane, while further teaching that three or more filters may be provided depending upon the application, p. 29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (WO-2017155124-A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Tanaka (JP-H06257412-A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Yamamoto (US-20140012527-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kitagawa discloses a life expectancy estimation method for a water treatment member that serves as a life expectancy estimation method for a water treatment member that is mounted on a water treatment device, the method comprising: managing history information including a usage history of each water treatment member in association with water treatment member identification information that individually identifies each water treatment member (Kitagawa p. 9 “in-use filter type identification information” identifying the type, specification, part number, and name of the first and second filters, together with stored information concerning performance change and operating condition) and using the history information to estimate the current condition and replacement timing of the individual water treatment member (Kitagawa p. 33 estimating “the current performance level of the filter unit in use or each filter” and “the replacement time of the filter unit or the individual filter in use”).
Kitagawa does not explicitly teach that the history information includes a manufacturing history, nor does Kitagawa expressly teach performing learning processing on previously acquired history information of a plurality of water treatment members until occurrence of failure to generate a life expectancy estimation model, applying the history information of an individual member to that model, and performing the estimation with a computer by statistical processing or an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Tanaka teaches the statistical life-expectancy processing missing from Kitagawa. Tanaka discloses a computer-based parts management device in which plant operating information is store as history information for individually identified parts, and a calculation means performs regression analysis based on the component history information to obtain a life-prediction formula and calculate a predicted life value for the component (Tanaka claim 1; pars. [0010]-[0012]). More particularly, Tanaka retrieves the historical data of previously discard components of the same type, uses the operating time at which the component reaches the end of its life as the objective variable, and uses operating/load history as explanatory variables in a multiple-regression analysis to generate the life-prediction equation (Tanaka par. [0027-0030]. Tanaka therefore teaches computerized statistical processing of historical information from previously life-expired members to generate a life-expectancy model and apply that model to individual members.
Yamamoto teaches managing machine elements using identification information individually associated with the element, wherein the identification information expressly includes one or more of “the time when the machine element was manufacture, a production lot of the machine element, and a production history of the machine element” (Yamamoto claim 1, par, [0015]). Yamamoto additionally teaches obtaining use information such as operating time and use conditions and employing a determining equation to calculate the remaining life of the particular machine element. Thus, Yamamoto expressly recognizes that both manufacturing-related information and subsequent usage information associated with the particular component are relevant to individualized remaining-life determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tanaka’s statistical life-prediction technique and Yamamoto’s manufacturing-history information to Kitagawa’s individually tracked water-treatment filters. Kitagawa already obtains time-varying information concerning the individual filter and uses that information to estimate replacement timing; Tanaka provides a known statistical method for converting historical component data into an individualized life prediction; and Yamamoto teaches that manufacturing/production history is additional component-specific information pertinent to remaining-life evaluation. Combining these teachings would predictably produce a more accurate individualized filter-life estimate by accounting for both the conditions under which the filter was manufactured and the conditions under which it has subsequently been used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights