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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (JP2020-151402, filed 09 September 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/JP2021/030530, filed 20 August 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1-8, the claimed invention falls under a statutory category, i.e., a system or apparatus (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03).
The claim(s) recite(s) the judicial exceptions (Step 2A, Prong One; MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)) of (1) “a concentration calculation unit that… calculates a predicted value of a concentration of impurities”, (2) “a removal rate calculation unit that calculates the removal rate”, (3) “a storage unit that stores the removal rate”, (4) “the concentration calculation unit calculates the predicted value of the concentration of impurities”, (5) “a concentration measuring unit that measures the concentration of impurities”, (6) “the removal rate calculation unit calculates the removal rate”, (7) “the concentration measuring unit measures a concentration of total organic carbon and a concentration of urea”, (8) “the removal rate calculation unit calculates the removal rate”, and (9) “the removal rate calculation unit calculates a current removal rate”.
These judicial exceptions are directed toward mental processes (3, 5, and 7; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions; performing a mental process on a generic computer; or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process) and mathematical concepts (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), i.e., mathematical formulas or equations or calculations).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two; MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)) because the claims do not reflect a particular way of achieving any purported improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)), no particular machine is recited (MPEP 2106.05(b)), no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing is claimed (MPEP 2106.05(c)), no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment are recited (MPEP 2106.05(e)), insignificant extra-solution activity is added to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or the judicial exceptions are generally linked to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The cited additional elements are (1) a water treatment apparatus, (2) an information processing device, (3) measuring units for total organic carbon and urea, (4) an output unit, and (5) a signal unit. All cited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions because these additional elements are considered mere data gathering (i.e., obtaining information, determining information, and offering information to users; MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05) because the additional elements identified in the previous step (Step 2A, Prong Two), taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further, because all additional elements are disclosed by or obvious over the prior art as noted in the subsequent prior art rejections. WOLF (US 2010/0292844 A1) discloses additional limitations (1), (2), (4), and (5); TAKATORI et al. (US 2021/0078873 A1) discloses the additional limitation (3) of measuring units for total organic carbon and urea.
Thus, the claimed invention is not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A; cited by Applicant, machine translation provided by Examiner and referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1, PARK discloses an apparatus for determining cleaning time for filtering wastewater using a membrane (abstract). The apparatus comprises a wastewater treatment system (i.e., a water treatment system comprising a water treatment apparatus) with a water quality monitoring unit 110 (i.e., an information processing device) that collects raw untreated water flowing into the system and measures the level/concentration of organic matter contained in the raw water (pg. 4, middle); a first database 120 that stores information about the treatment capacity of the system (pg. 4, bottom); a second database 130 that stores information on the filter membrane 30, e.g., filtration capacity and quality (pg. 4, bottom); and a water prediction unit 140 that predicts the concentration of contaminants contained in treated effluent (i.e., a concentration calculation unit; pg. 5, top). The water prediction unit 140 determines this effluent concentration by basing calculations on historical data on the filter membrane 30 capacity, filtration quality, and a “concentration rate of contaminants” using a rate calculation unit 150 to determine a filtration rate by which the membrane removes contaminants (i.e., calculates a predicted value of a concentration of impurities contained in water supplied from the water treatment apparatus based on a removal rate for removing impurities in the water treatment apparatus; pg. 5, middle).
Regarding Claim 2, PARK discloses the system of Claim 1. PARK further discloses that the water prediction unit 140 includes the rate calculation unit 150 that determines the “concentration rate of contaminants”, i.e., the rate by which the filtering membrane 30 concentrations/removes contaminants from the raw water (i.e., a removal rate calculation unit that calculates the removal rate; pg. 5, middle). As noted earlier, PARK discloses the water prediction unit 140 utilizes data from the second database 130 that contains historical data on the filter membrane 30 capacity and filtration quality on prior treatments of the influent raw water (i.e., a storage unit that stores the removal rate of the water treatment apparatus that was calculated by the removal rate calculation unit; the concentration calculation unit calculates the predicted value of the concentration of impurities based on the removal rate stored in the storage unit; pg. 5, top).
Regarding Claim 3, PARK discloses the system of Claim 2. PARK further discloses the water quality monitoring unit 110 collects untreated raw water and measures the level/concentration of organic matter contained in the raw water (i.e., a concentration measuring unit that measures a concentration of impurities contained in the water supplied to the water treatment apparatus; pg. 4, middle). PARK even further discloses that the water prediction unit 140 determines the “concentration rate of contaminants” based on the quality of the influent raw water (i.e., the removal rate calculation unit calculates the removal rate in the water treatment apparatus based on the concentration of impurities contained in the water supplied to the water treatment apparatus and the concentration of impurities contained in the water supplied from the water treatment apparatus measured by the concentration measuring unit; pg. 5, top).
Regarding Claim 5, PARK discloses the system of Claim 2. As noted earlier, PARK discloses the water prediction unit 140 utilizes data from the measured concentration of contaminants in the raw water and the second database 130 that contains historical data on the filter membrane 30 capacity and filtration quality on prior treatments of the influent raw water (i.e., the removal rate calculation unit calculates a current removal rate in the water treatment apparatus based on a current state of use and records of past use of the water treatment apparatus; pg. 5, top).
Regarding Claim 6, PARK discloses the system of Claim 1. PARK further discloses the water prediction unit 140 of the water quality monitoring unit 110 outputs a predicted concentration of contaminants in treated effluent (pg. 5, top) to be utilized in calculating a ratio of contaminants and a subsequent washing time determination unit 160 (i.e., the information processing devices includes an output unit that outputs information indicating a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit; pg. 5, bottom).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A) in view of TAKATORI et al. (US 2021/0078873 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, PARK discloses the system of Claim 3. PARK further discloses the concentration of organic matter in the raw water is determined by measuring the total organic carbon (TOC) content (i.e., the concentration measuring unit measures the concentration of total organic carbon; pg. 6, bottom). PARK is deficient in disclosing that the concentration measuring unit also measures a concentration of urea contained in water supplied from the water treatment apparatus.
TAKATORI discloses a water treatment management apparatus for monitoring and evaluating water supplied to a water treatment system and the management of said system (abstract). The apparatus includes a TOC removal apparatus and measuring means for measuring TOC concentration including hardly-decomposable TOC components such as urea (i.e., the concentration measuring unit measures the concentration of total organic carbon; p0037). As further disclosed, TAKATORI reports on the concentration of urea after treatment (i.e., the concentration measuring unit measures…a concentration of urea contained in water supplied from the water treatment apparatus; e.g., Table 1, Example 1, p0047-0048). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a concentration measuring unit that has the capability to measure the concentration of urea as taught by TAKATORI for the system disclosed by PARK.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A) in view of WOLF (US 2010/0292844 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, PARK discloses the system of Claim 1. As noted earlier, the PARK-disclosed system utilizes a predictive unit to determine a point at which the filter membrane is sufficiently fouled so as to warrant a cleaning procedure (pg. 2, middle/top). While not necessarily disclosing a “warning unit” as claimed, such a disclosure implies a programmed threshold at which the system recommends a cleaning procedure based on effluent contaminant concentrations calculated by the system (i.e., when a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value). PARK is deficient in disclosing the information processing device includes a warning unit that outputs a predetermined alert when a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Claim 7) or that the warning unit outputs a signal for performing a process for reducing concentration when a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Claim 8).
WOLF discloses an automated water treatment system for treating raw water to produce potable water (abstract). The system comprises a controller that monitors water quality conditions, e.g., a TOC sensor, a turbidity sensor, and a particle sensor (p0114). If the controller determines a TOC value (or any other measured water quality parameter) exceeds a programmed threshold, the controller sends a signal to activate a treatment unit to address that determination (i.e., a warning unit that outputs a predetermined alert when a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value; p0114). It is further noted that WOLF discloses an operator monitors all aspects of the operation from a monitoring station (p0127). In yet another example, WOLF discloses that the operator may choose to “manually activate a clean in place process” when a predetermined threshold is reached (p0075). While these disclosures do not explicitly indicate a “warning unit” per se, the teaching that an operator is provided the option to manually activate a cleaning procedure implies that the system alerts the operator to a predetermined threshold being exceeded, i.e., there must be some type of warning/alerting unit that functionally transforms the information determined by the controller into a signal readable/perceivable by the operator. Thus, WOLF suggests or makes obvious a system includes a warning unit that outputs a predetermined alert when a concentration calculated by the concentration calculation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a warning unit as suggested by WOLF for the system disclosed by PARK.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 24 October 2025 have been acknowledged.
Regarding the Claim Objections of Claims 2, 3, and 4, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 3 and 4 are persuasive; these objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 3-5 are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendments are unpersuasive; these rejections have been sustained.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1-3, and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WOLF (US 2010/0292844 A1) and Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WOLF (US 2010/0292844 A1) in view of TAKATORI et al. (US 2021/0078873 A1), Applicant’s amendments are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the IDS filed 03 November 2025, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A), Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A) in view of TAKATORI et al. (US 2021/0078873 A1), and Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (KR 20130058473 A) in view of WOLF (US 2010/0292844 A1).
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been acknowledged.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “the Specification discloses otherwise” that insignificant extra-solution activity is added to the judicial exceptions (pg. 12) and notes that the claimed invention solves a water treatment system problem by removing impurities from water (pg. 12, middle).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
No particular way by which this purported improvement is disclosed in the Specification nor claimed. Applicant has merely argued and disclosed that impurities are removed from water with no other particulars discussed. Such generic statements in support of a generic system does not provide any significant extra-solution activity surmounting the finding of subject matter ineligibility.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments (pg. 13-15) have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 03 November 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777