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 1-8 and 21 are currently pending
Claims 9 and 11-20 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claim 10 is currently canceled
Claims 1-8 and 21 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/26/2023, 08/08/2024 and 08/15/2025 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 1-8 and 21 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “in the ballast water,” and instead should state “in a ballast water,” for further clarity and to avoid antecedent issues. FURTHERMORE, line 4 states “comprising the steps of:” and instead should state “comprising steps of:” for further clarity and to avoid antecedent issues. ADDITIONALLY, lines 8, 11-12 and 20 each state “the determined prevailing condition value” and instead should each state “the determined prevailing operational condition value” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. ALSO, line 12 states “and the step of” and instead should remove the extra space in between and further recite “and the step of” for further clarity. IN ADDITION, line 13 states “or the reference value range;” and instead should state “or the reference range;” for further clarity. FURTHER, lines 14-15 state “of the prevailing operational condition values and/or a frequency for the modifying actions when” and instead should state “of the determined prevailing operational condition value and/or a frequency for the modifying action when” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the determined prevailing condition value” and instead should state “the determined prevailing operational condition value” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the prevailing condition” and instead should state “the prevailing operational condition value” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “determining the prevailing operational condition” and instead should state “determining the prevailing operational condition value” 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: “a control unit configured to control” on lines 3-4 of claim 1.
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 1-8 and 21 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 operation” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 1 recites the limitation “based on a prediction and/or the determined prevailing…depending on which value…” on line 20. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to claim, is a prediction a value as well? Claims 2-8 and 21 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the determined differential pressure” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 4 recites the limitation “…the higher the predicted…” on lines 3 and 4. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to claim and recite?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "…the lower the predicted…” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to claim and recite?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "…the higher the predicted…” on lines 3 and 4-5. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant is trying to claim and recite?
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 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2011/0303615 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Cunningham (U.S. 2021/0171362 A1) (hereinafter “Cunningham”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee teaches a method for controlling a ballast water treatment system (see FIG. 3) (see paragraphs 2, 8-9, 14-15, 18-19, 31-32, 51-52 and 54-67) comprising a filter unit with a backflushing arrangement comprising a movable backflush element (see FIGS. 3-4, a filtering unit 1 further including a filter 12 and an automatic backwashing unit 13, wherein the automatic backwashing unit 13 further includes a driving unit 131, a suction unit 132 and an exhaust unit 133) (see paragraphs 8-9, 14, 18 and 31-37), a treatment unit for neutralizing living organisms in the ballast water (see FIG. 3, an ultraviolet treatment unit 3) (see paragraphs 9, 11, 15, 18, 31-32, 35, 45-47 and 49), and a control unit configured to control the operation of the ballast water treatment system (see FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67), the method comprising the steps of:
determining a prevailing operational condition value with a sensor (see FIG. 3, a pressure sensor 21) (a pressure sensor installed at each of the inlet 111 and the outlet 112) (see paragraphs 10, 14-16, 18, 32, 36, 40-43, 45, 49 and 52);
receiving in the control unit the determined prevailing operational condition value relating to the filter unit and/or the treatment unit (see FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67);
comparing the determined prevailing condition value with a reference value or a reference range for a prevailing condition in the control unit (see FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see FIG. 7) (see paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67);
controlling performing of a modifying action relating to an operation of the filter unit and/or the treatment unit in the ballast water treatment system, based on the determined prevailing condition value and the step of comparing, when the determined prevailing operational condition value differs from the reference value or the reference value range (see FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see FIG. 7) (see paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67); and
further controlling the ballast water treatment system to perform the modifying action based on a prediction and/or the determined prevailing condition value, depending on which value reaches the reference value first (see FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see FIG. 7) (see paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Lee does not explicitly teach tracking a trend for a development of the prevailing operational condition values and/or a frequency for the modifying actions when the step of determining and/or the step of controlling performing are repeated during a determined time interval, and predicting a moment in time where a critical value for the determined prevailing operational condition value is reached based on the tracked trend in the step of tracking, as recited in independent claim 1.
Cunningham further teaches a ballast water treatment system and method including a predictive tool used to monitor various key performance indicators or parameters, and trends, and also predict a future date and time for cleaning or other actions/adjustments need to ensure an efficient and effective water treatment system and method (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Lee and Cunningham are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a ballast water treatment 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 ballast water treatment system and method of Lee to include a step of tracking a trend for a development and/or a frequency of a modifying action, and predicting a future value/threshold/predetermined range, as taught by Cunningham, for optimization purposes to ensure an effective and proper ballast water treatment system and method (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Lee further teaches the determined prevailing condition value comprises a differential pressure over the filter unit (see Lee FIG. 3, a pressure sensor 21) (a pressure sensor installed at each of the inlet 111 and the outlet 112) (see Lee paragraphs 10, 14-16, 18, 32, 36, 40-43, 45, 49 and 52).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein Lee further teaches the modifying action comprises a backflushing operation when a determined differential pressure differs from the reference value but does not reach a critical value for the differential pressure (see Lee FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see Lee FIG. 7) (see Lee paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein Lee further teaches the step of controlling performing and/or the step of further controlling comprise increasing a rotational speed of the movable backflush element the higher the predicted and/or the determined differential pressure is, and/or decreasing a flow rate of the ballast water through the filter unit, the higher the predicted and/or the determined differential pressure is (see Lee FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see Lee FIG. 7) (see Lee paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Lee further teaches the step of determining the prevailing condition comprises determining a prevailing time between backflushing operations in the filter unit, when the backflushing steps are repeated (see Lee FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see Lee FIG. 7) (see Lee paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Cunningham further teaches a ballast water treatment system and method including a predictive tool used to monitor various key performance indicators or parameters, and trends, and also predict a future date and time for cleaning or other actions/adjustments need to ensure an efficient and effective water treatment system and method (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Lee and Cunningham are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a ballast water treatment 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 ballast water treatment system and method of Lee to include a step of tracking a trend for a development and/or a frequency of a modifying action, and predicting a future value/threshold/predetermined range, as taught by Cunningham, for optimization purposes to ensure an effective and proper ballast water treatment system and method (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Lee further teaches the treatment unit is a UV-reactor comprising one or more UV-lamps, and wherein the step of determining the prevailing operational condition comprises determining UV-intensity (see Lee FIG. 3, an ultraviolet treatment unit 3) (see Lee paragraphs 9, 11, 15, 18, 31-32, 35, 45-47 and 49).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein Lee further teaches the step of controlling performing and/or the step of further controlling comprise decreasing a flow rate through the UV-reactor, the lower the predicted and/or the determined UV-intensity is (see Lee FIG. 3, an ultraviolet treatment unit 3) (see Lee FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see Lee FIG. 7) (see Lee paragraphs 9, 11, 15-16, 18, 31-32, 35-37, 40-43, 45-47, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Cunningham further teaches in the step of predicting, the prediction is based on linear and/or non-linear regression (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Lee and Cunningham are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a ballast water treatment 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 ballast water treatment system and method of Lee to include a step of tracking a trend for a development and/or a frequency of a modifying action, and predicting a future value/threshold/predetermined range, as taught by Cunningham, for optimization purposes to ensure an effective and proper ballast water treatment system and method (see Cunningham paragraphs 3, 5-7, 27-29, 38, 47-48, 51-55, 59, 64-67 and 73-78).
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Lee in view of Cunningham teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein Lee further teaches the step of controlling performing and/or the step of further controlling comprise increasing a rotational speed of the movable backflush element the higher the predicted and/or the determined differential pressure is, and/or decreasing a flow rate of the ballast water through the filter unit, the higher the predicted and/or the determined differential pressure is (see Lee FIG. 3, a control unit 4) (see Lee FIG. 7) (see Lee paragraphs 16, 18, 32, 36-37, 40-43, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56-67).
Other References Considered
Eriksson et al. (U.S. 2009/0321365 A1) (hereinafter “Erik”) teaches a system of water treatment.
Ramon et al. (U.S. 3,574,509) (hereinafter “Ramon”) teaches a backwash filter.
Sun (U.S. 2011/0067737 A1) (hereinafter “Sun”) teaches a system and method for cleaning a film separating device.
ANDERSON (U.S. 2002/0008068 A1) (hereinafter “Anderson”) teaches a system and method for backwashing fluid filter systems.
Lynch et al. (U.S. 5,587,074) (hereinafter “Lynch”) teaches a fluid filter with enhanced backwash flow.
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