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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a1)) as anticipated by PTL2, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over PTL2 (JP 2016067968.) in view of PTL1 (JP2005279461) and Downing et al (US 4,765,906.)
This reference, cited by applicant as PTL2, teaches an RO system (see the figures) and its operation. Claim 7 is anticipated by the teaching of [0094] and [0095] – a microprocessor with programs stored in memory. The program is for prioritizing membrane cleaning cycles by backwashing, based on factors such as load ([0052], [0041,) degree of membrane clogging [0051], etc. Start and stop instructions – see [0046.]
It is noted that the claims are directed to both start/stop process and “membrane treatment performance histories.” Under the principle of the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of the specification, the start/stop process does not preclude activities between the stop and start, such as a blow treatment (flushing), or a backwash. Applicant’s disclosure includes a blow treatment with the stop and before or at the start – see “flushing at the time of starting..” in [0028.] Regarding the “history” of start/stop operations, PTL2 teaches different types of backwash like without and with chemical, bubbling, etc., depending on the back pressure build-up (history.) Thus the clam is anticipated. Alternately, it is also common sense that the strategy of cleaning be changed, if one method of cleaning starts showing failure to provide the desired result, for a more aggressive cleaning, based on the history of the RO unit cleaning cycles. Nonetheless, the computer program claimed requires only starts and stops, and what happens in between the stop and start has no bearing on the recited program.
Claims 1-6 recite the control process because PTL2 teaches the process steps as recited. It is also commonsense that one would use start/stop process more (or continue to apply) on a system that responds to such cleaning method from past history, and resort to more aggressive cleaning on those that respond less.
Applicant’s argues that there is a mismatch between PTL2 teaching and the claimed invention. According to the applicant, PTL2 taches:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, claim 1 (and claim 9) recites: “wherein an RO apparatus in which the estimated degree of recovery is higher is decided to be prioritized higher.” This is what PTL2 teaches, because it is the clogged RO apparatus that would respond to the start/stop and additional cleaning. Evidence, see applicant’s claim 4.The unclogged RO apparatus would not respond to start/stop process because there would be no “fouling” to detach from the membrane.
The corresponding element in claims 8 and 10 recites the number of starts and stops, which would only be a result of the prioritizing. More priority means more number of starts and stops, which is obvious if not anticipated. A higher priority would result in a larger number of starts and stops for any specified period of time, a direct result, and thus anticipatory. Please note that there is no quantitative disclosure on priority vs. number of starts and stops, and the predetermined times.
PTL2 does decide the cleaning steps based on histories of past cleaning. The microprocessor in PTL2 is programmed to record the process histories. Claim ends with a decision making wherein a higher priority for start/stop cleaning is given for an apparatus that responds better (higher degree of recovery), which is similar to that in claim 1, which would have been obvious if not anticipated, because PTL2 teaches multiple backwash before a chemical cleaning in [0031]. In [0094]-[0096] it teaches when the option for chemical cleaning is used, which appears to be when response to backwash without chemicals is no longer responsive enough.
Note on the examiner’s understating of the process history showing higher degree of recovery: as the RO apparatus operates, there is a gradual increase in fouling with associated flux loss, pressure drop, and increase in power consumption, which amounts to a decrease in performance. A stop/start step is initiated on the apparatus that shows the highest decrease in performance – the one that has the highest priority for going into a cleaning cycle. However, if the history of prior such cleaning on this apparatus show a decline in performance improvement upon start/stop cleaning, it is given a lower priority for such cleaning, and a higher priority for more aggressive cleaning. Since all or several apparatuses cannot be taken offline for cleaning at the same time, cleaning is prioritized based on these criteria for a sequential cleaning of the apparatuses. Such process steps are made obvious by the teaching of prioritization by PTL2, if not readily anticipated (the available English translation on this reference is a bit hard to comprehend.) It is also common sense.
Claims 4, and 8-10: priority based on exit pressure or load (power consumption) – see [0094]
Claim 5, 8 and 10: already addressed in claim 1.
Claim 6: priority based on membrane performance – backwash or chemical cleaning is decided based on the current status in PTL2. Id. Performance based on power or pressure are measured using sensors – implied.
Alternately, if one were to consider that PTL2 teaching a backwash step between the stop and start is more than what is contemplated in the stop/start step claimed (stop/start, with no other action therebetween,) PTL1 teaches stopping, blowing or flushing with water, and then starting as an effective cleaning step, which avoids use of cleaning chemicals. Downing teaches reverse osmosis systems cleaning by back-flushing or by stop and start operation (col. 5, lines 48-53.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the teaching of PTL1 or Downing and have the stop and start quicker cleaning to reduce the cleaning chemical consumption and also to improve performance with reduced down time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection. The arguments directed at the 103 rejection are not commensurate in scope with the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777