DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are currently pending
Claims 8-20 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-7 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 04/07/2023, 03/22/2024 and 11/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6 state “wherein the determination model is further obtained by performing learning processing using data” and instead should state “wherein the learned determination model is further obtained by performing the learning processing using the data” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, lines 6-7 state “with chemicals and information on chemicals to be used” and instead should state “with the chemicals and the information on the chemicals to be used” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the determination model” and instead should state “the learned determination model” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “with cleaning water.” and instead should state “with the cleaning water.” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the determination model” and instead should state “the learned determination model” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the determination model” and instead should state “the learned determination model” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquirer configured to acquire data” on line 4 of claim 1, “an outputter configured to output an optimum value” on line 9 of claim 1, “wherein the acquirer is configured to further acquire data” on line 2 of claim 2, “wherein the outputter is configured to further output” on line 9 of claim 2, “a learning section configured to acquire” on line 2 of claim 3, and “wherein the outputter is configured to output” on line 2 of claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the future” on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a frequency” on line 6. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a frequency’ as recited on line 2 of claim 2, or a different frequency?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI et al. (U.S. 2021/0069652 A1) (hereinafter “Koba”) in view of KIM JOON HA et al. (KR 2019/0136681 A) (hereinafter “Kim”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 1:
Koba teaches a support device (see FIG. 1, a management device 20) for supporting an operation manager (‘facility operator’) of a water treatment apparatus (‘water treatment facility’) having a membrane filtration device with a filtration membrane (see paragraph 8 – “a membrane separation device is provided with a plurality of water treatment systems”) (see paragraphs 1, 10, 17, 31, 44-46, 49 and 59-61) the support device comprising:
an acquirer (‘a water treatment facility information reception unit’) configured to acquire data indicating water quality information of water to be treated (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), a pressure to supply the water to be treated to the membrane filtration device (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), a transmembrane pressure at the filtration membrane (‘a transmembrane pressure difference prediction unit’) (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), a permeation flux at the filtration membrane (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), a frequency and cleaning conditions for cleaning the filtration membrane with cleaning water (‘a chemical solution cleaning planning unit’) (‘an operating conditions adjustment information generation unit’) (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux); and
an outputter configured to output an optimum value of a current permeation flux (‘an operating conditions adjustment information transmission unit’) (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), and a frequency and cleaning conditions for cleaning the membrane filtration device with the cleaning water in the future based on the data indicating the water quality information of the water to be treated (‘a chemical solution cleaning planning unit’) (‘an operating conditions adjustment information generation unit’) (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), the pressure to supply the water to be treated to the membrane filtration device (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), and the transmembrane pressure at the filtration membrane (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), that have been acquired by the acquirer (‘a water treatment facility information reception unit’) (see paragraph 10) (see paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux).
Koba does not explicitly teach using a learned determination model acquired by performing learning processing using the data acquired by the acquirer, as recited in independent claim 1.
Kim further teaches a system and method for supporting decision-making on a membrane maintenance using a classification algorithm comprising machine learning and various models/functions/algorithms (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Koba and Kim are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment management system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the support device of Koba to include a step of machine learning, as taught by Kim, to further evaluate, adjust and optimize a parameter/data value (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1,
wherein Koba further teaches the acquirer (‘a water treatment facility information reception unit’) is configured to further acquire data indicating a frequency for cleaning the filtration membrane with chemicals and information on chemicals to be used when the filtration membrane is cleaned with the chemicals (‘a chemical solution cleaning planning unit’) (‘an operating conditions adjustment information generation unit’) (see Koba paragraph 10) (see Koba paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux), and
wherein the outputter is configured to further output a frequency for cleaning the membrane filtration device with chemicals in the future and information on chemicals to be used when the membrane filtration device is cleaned with the chemicals (‘an operating conditions adjustment information transmission unit’) (see Koba paragraph 10) (see Koba paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux).
Kim further teaches a system and method for supporting decision-making on a membrane maintenance using a classification algorithm comprising machine learning and various models/functions/algorithms (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Koba and Kim are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment management system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the support device of Koba to include a step of machine learning, as taught by Kim, to further evaluate, adjust and optimize a parameter/data value (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further teaches comprising:
a learning section configured to acquire the determination model by performing the learning processing using the data acquired by the acquirer (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Koba and Kim are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment management system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the support device of Koba to include a step of machine learning, as taught by Kim, to further evaluate, adjust and optimize a parameter/data value (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1,
wherein Koba further teaches the cleaning conditions comprise supply pressure of cleaning water when the membrane filtration device is cleaned with cleaning water (‘a chemical solution cleaning planning unit’) (‘an operating conditions adjustment information generation unit’) (see Koba paragraph 10) (see Koba paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1,
Wherein Kim further teaches the determination model is a model for determining a frequency at which online chemical cleaning or offline chemical cleaning needs to be performed on the membrane filtration device in the future, and information on chemicals to be used when the online chemical cleaning or the offline chemical cleaning is performed on the membrane filtration device (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Koba and Kim are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment management system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the support device of Koba to include a step of machine learning, as taught by Kim, to further evaluate, adjust and optimize a parameter/data value (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1,
wherein Kim further teaches the determination model is a model for determining a time at which the filtration membrane of the membrane filtration device needs to be replaced (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Koba and Kim are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water treatment management system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the support device of Koba to include a step of machine learning, as taught by Kim, to further evaluate, adjust and optimize a parameter/data value (see Kim 1, 7, 11-12, 15-17, 23, 31-34, 37-40, 42, 52 and 54).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Koba in view of Kim teaches the support device according to claim 1,
wherein Koba further teaches the outputter is configured to output a graph indicating a relationship between a number of days of filtration and the transmembrane pressure as support information (‘an operating conditions adjustment information transmission unit’) (see Koba paragraph 10) (see Koba paragraphs 21-22 and 25-26 further describing numerous parameters/characteristics including pressure, transmembrane pressure, and flux).
Other References Considered
Liu et al. (U.S. 2010/0300968 A1) (hereinafter “Liu”) teaches a membrane cleaning system and method with pulsed gas slugs.
SUBBIAH et al. (U.S. 2013/0060384 A1) (hereinafter “Subbiah”) teaches a system and method for optimizing membrane cleaning process.
Heiss (U.S. 2009/0152178 A1) (hereinafter “Heiss”) teaches a fully automated membrane cleaning system and method.
Kodukula et al. (U.S. 2003/0236649 A1) (hereinafter “Kodu”) teaches a water treatment monitoring system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights