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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each rejection under 35 USC§ 112(b), 102 and 103 previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed October 22, 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 112a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, claims 1 and 16 are rejected because the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the presently claimed subject matter at the time of filing. In particular, the amended claims now recite, in the second flushing operation, “maintaining a third discharge flow rate of third percentage of the first flow rate through the second outlet and maintaining a fourth discharge flow rate of a fourth percentage of the first flow rate through the first outlet, the third percentage greater than the fourth percentage.” The originally filed specification describes a first flushing operation and a second flushing operation in terms of water passing through the first outlet and the second outlet at stated percentages of the feedwater flow rate, for example about 85% to about 95% through one outlet and about 0% to about 10% through the other outlet, followed by reversal of those percentages in the second flushing operation. However, the specification does not describe or identify a “third discharge flow rate”, “third percentage”, “fourth discharge flow rate” or “fourth percentage” nor does it describe these as distinct claimed variables tied to a previously introduced “first flow rate”. Instead, the disclosure discusses only flow relationships as percentage of the feedwater flow rate. The amendment therefore introduces a different formulation of the flushing relationship than what is expressly described in the original disclosure. Although the specification provides examples of reversed outlet flow relationships during a second flushing operation, including an examples in which one outlet has about 6.5 m3/h and the other outlet has about 0.34 m3/h and then those are reversed, the specification still does not describe the amended limitation in terms of the newly introduced “third” and “fourth” discharge rates and percentages as now claimed. Claims 2, 6-7 and 21 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1 . Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 16.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the presently claimed subject matter at the time of filing. In particular, claim 9 recites flushing the ultrafiltration membrane module by increasing a flow rate of deionized water from a first flow rate to a preset flow rate and then decreasing the flow rate. However, the originally filed specification does not describe a preset flow rate. Instead the specification describes increasing the flow rate from 0 m3/h to an optimal flow rate, or from a rated flow rate to an optimal flow rate, and then decreasing the flow rate back to the rated flow rate. The specification also provides an example in which the feedwater flow rate is increased from about 7 m3/h to about 14 m3/h. Although the originally filed disclosure supports increasing and decreasing flow rate generally, and supports the concepts of a rated flow rate and an optimal flow rate, it does not identify or describe the amended limitation in terms of a preset flow rate as now claimed. The term “preset” introduces a different characterization of the target flow rate than what is expressly disclosed in the original specification. Claims 10-15 and 22-24 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights