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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2023, 08/21/2023, 03/19/2025 and 12/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is not in a single paragraph format and is over 150 words. Also, the Abstract references Figure 1 in the last line and this reference should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-16 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 supplied amount" in line 13 (end of 5th clause). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be changed to the “supplied amount of biocide”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the measurands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the supplied amount" in line 9 (end of 3rd clause). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be changed to the “supplied amount of biocide”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the measurands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since the claims depend upon and incorporate all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively.
Appropriate corrective action is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a device for controlling the content of microorganisms in a liquid that includes a control unit connected to a measuring unit and is configured to determine a dosage of a biocide based on the measured microorganism content in order to achieve a predefined microorganism content and the control unit determines the dosage using a model with at least one parameter of a relationship between an amount of biocide supplied in a time interval and a change in the microorganism content caused by the supplied amount in this time interval.
For claim 9, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a method of controlling a content of microorganisms in a liquid that has a control process that measures the microorganism content by means of a measuring unit and determines a dosage of a biocide with a view to achieving a predefined microorganism content based on the measured microorganism content and a model that uses at least one parameter of a relationship between an amount of biocide supplied in a time interval and a change in microorganism content caused by the supplied amount in that time interval.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 would be allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 respectively.
The closest prior art is Banks et al. (US 2002/0042092 A1) which discloses a method for controlling microbial growth through the use of biocides, but Banks does not teach or fairly suggest the control unit that is connected to a measurement unit and determines a dosage of a biocide based on the application of a model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Otsuka (US 2018/0259440 A1) which discloses an information processing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799