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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 JANUARY 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-7
Withdrawn Claims: 8-16
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 6, reference number 27 is missing a description in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, “requirements” in line 2 of the claim should read “the requirements”.
In Claim 3, “a current filtration meets requirements by detecting a water quality status value” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the current filtration meets the requirements by detecting the water quality status value”.
In Claim 4, “requirements” in line 2 of the claim should read “the requirements’.
In Claim 4, “in response a determination” in line 7 of the claim should read “in response to a determination”.
In Claim 5, “a current filtration meets requirements” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the current filtration meets the requirements”.
In Claim 6, “a filtration time length of a next filtration based on a filtration time length of the current filtration and whether the current filtration meets requirements” in lines 1-3 should read “the filtration time length of the next filtration based on the filtration time length of the current filtration and whether the current filtration meets the requirements”.
In Claim 6, “that the current filtration meeting the requirements” and “that the current filtration not meeting the requirements” in lines 4-5 and 7-8 of the claim should read “that the current filtration is meeting the requirements” and “that the current filtration is not meeting the requirements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoek et al (US Patent Application No. 20160046503 A1) hereinafter Hoek.
Regarding Claim 1, Hoek discloses methods for intelligent fluid filtration management in which a filter maintenance is performed based upon monitored parameters (i.e., a method of controlling a filtration time length, comprising; Paragraph 0007),
where a filtration management system monitors at least one of a change in fluid filtrate throughput (paragraph 0008), transfilter pressure, or concentration of predetermined permeate ions (i.e., detecting a water quality status of a current filtration; Paragraph 0130),
a constant pressure is applied to fluid flowing across a membrane for a predetermined time (Paragraph 0009) where the system accumulates values from the previous filtration step, and stops the filtration process when the values meet certain thresholds and performs a backwash or clean in place (i.e., determining whether the water quality status value of the current filtration meets requirements; Paragraph 0112)
and the frequency of the backwash cycles is changed based on the performance of the previous cycles with regards to the accumulated parameters (i.e., setting a filtration time length of a next filtration based on a filtration time length of the current filtration and whether the current filtration meets the requirements; Paragraph 0112).
Regarding Claim 2, Hoek further discloses the use of the flux of forward filtration, Qf, (i.e., detecting a first water quality status value before the current filtration) and the use of a flux of backwash, QBW, (i.e., and a second water quality status value after the current filtration)
and calculating a backwash ratio, rBW, (i.e., calculating a ratio of the second water quality status value to the first water quality status value; Paragraphs 0071-0072)
where it is desirable to have as small as possible of a backwash ratio (i.e., in response to a determination that the ratio is less than or equal to a ratio threshold, determining the current filtration as meeting the requirements; Paragraph 0072) and the backwash ratio being greater than the preset limit means the process is less economical (i.e., and in response to a determination that the ratio is greater than the ratio threshold, determining the current filtration as not meeting the requirements; Paragraph 0096).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoek further discloses the use of measured transmembrane pressure, TMP, over time during a forward filtration cycle (i.e., wherein determining whether the current filtration meets the requirements by detecting the water quality status value comprises continuously detecting a third water quality status value while the current filtration is being performed; Paragraph 0068)
where flux across the membrane is calculated from the transmembrane pressure (i.e., calculating a water quality change of the third water quality status value; Paragraphs 0054-0056)
and a flux ratio of the average flux of previous cycles is compared to a preset flux ratio with a flux ratio greater than the preset ratio meaning the filtration time conditions can be maintained and a lower flux ratio means that the next forward filtration cycle is stopped earlier (i.e., determining whether the current filtration meets the requirements based on the water quality change; Paragraph 0095).
Regarding Claim 4, Hoek further discloses that the flux is measured and varies in each filtration cycle (i.e., wherein determining whether the current filtration meets the requirements comprises continuously and periodically detecting the third water quality status value while the current filtration is being performed; Paragraph 0117) that has an original parameter of filtration time (i.e., and setting a unit time length as a period; Paragraph 0119)
wherein the flux will have a rate of decline that changes over time especially with pulse events of increased fouling and the rate of flux decline can be compared with previous cycles (i.e., calculating a status changing rate of the third water quality status value within the unit time length; Paragraphs 0116-0118)
and wherein a shallower flux decline rate indicates that filtration time can be made to be the original filtration time or close to the original filtration time (i.e., in response to a determination that the status changing rate is less than a changing rate threshold, determining the current filtration as meeting the requirements; Paragraph 0119) and a steeper flux decline rate indicates accelerated fouling, increased backwash frequency, and thus a shorter filtration cycle time (i.e., and in response to a determination that the status changing rate is greater than or equal to the changing rate threshold, determining the current filtration as not meeting the requirements; Paragraph 0118).
Regarding Claim 5, Hoek further discloses the use of real-time recorded values of transfilter pressure and flow rate to determine permeability (i.e., wherein determining whether the current filtration meets the requirements comprises detecting a fourth water quality status before the current filtration and a fifth water quality status value after the current filtration)
and using a statistical model based on the real-time permeability measurements to extrapolate a predicted permeability (i.e., calculating to obtain a calculated fifth water quality status value after the current filtration based on the fourth water quality status value and a preset water quality changing ratio)
to predict the remaining module lifetime by comparing the current filter permeability with the threshold permeability (i.e., determining whether the current filtration meets the requirements based on a result of comparing the fifth water quality status value and the calculated water quality status value; Paragraph 0132).
Regarding Claim 6, Hoek further discloses that the filtration management system involves comparing the average flux, average derivative, and the cumulative flux with values obtained in the previous cycle and stopping the filtration based upon the comparison (i.e., wherein setting the filtration time length of the next filtration based on the filtration time length of the current filtration and whether the current filtration meets the requirements comprises; Paragraph 0112)
wherein if the rate of flux decline is steeper than the average rate of flux decline, the filtration time is maintained at a short time or made shorter (i.e., in accordance with a determination that the current filtration is meeting the requirements is setting the filtration time length of the next filtration to be the filtration time length of the current filtration; Paragraph 0118)
and wherein if the rate of flux decline is near the average rate of flux decline, the filtration time is increased (i.e., and in accordance with a determination that the current filtration is not meeting the requirements, setting the filtration time length of the next filtration to be the filtration time length of the current filtration adding a unit time length; Paragraph 0119).
Regarding Claim 7, Hoek further discloses that concentration of permeate ions can be monitored to determine the condition of the filters (i.e., wherein the water quality status value is an ion concentration value; Paragraphs 0130-0131).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772