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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (is 371 of PCT/JP2020/044781, filed on 02 December 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “prediction of the discharged amount” should be corrected to read “prediction of the amount of discharged drainage from each factory” to provide clarity and consistency.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “a contamination concentration[[,]] of the liquid regenerant, detected by” should be corrected to read “a contamination concentration of the liquid regenerant, detected by” to correct punctuation..
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “acquiring an operating plan information” should be corrected to read “acquiring operating plan information” to correct grammar.
The phrase “impurities adsorbed to a solid detergent” should be corrected to read “impurities adsorbed by a solid detergent” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “activated carbon”. However, Claim 1 recites only “solid detergent” and does not require activated carbon, and Claim 8 separately recites that the solid detergent is activated carbon. Accordingly, Claim 4 is of improper dependent form due to the abrupt introduction of “activated carbon” without clear linkage to the “solid detergent” of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1–2 and 6–8 are allowed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as containing minor informalities.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previously applied §112(b) and §103 rejections. Upon further consideration and a further search, no prior art has been found that teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. The claims require acquiring operating plan information from each of a plurality of factories to predict discharged drainage amounts from each factory, and controlling timing of operation based on that prediction, which goes beyond merely accommodating hardware capacity and distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art of record.
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 TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777