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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is acknowledged that the claim amendments as filed 01/20/2026 have obviated that specific grounds of the 112 (b) rejection made in the previous Office action. However, the newly added claim language to claims 1 and 9 and terminology of new claims 11-13 contains a plurality of terminology which is inconsistent, lacks antecedent basis or is unclear, vague and/or ambiguous as indicated below in under the Heading of the Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Applicant’s arguments, in the Remarks filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0241956 (Page) in view of the Gibson et al Non-Patent Literature Publication entitled "Measuring and mitigating inhibition during quantitative real time PCR analysis of viral nucleic acid extracts from large-volume environmental water samples" (Gibson) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Arguments that Page in view of Gibson alone or in combination lack teaching of the claim clause “wherein, in the removing, conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor” are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not specifically address whether Page in view of Gibson fairly disclose or teach all the limitations of apparatus claim 9 and claim 10 dependent therefrom.
However, it is presumed that applicants urge the patentability of claim 9 over the prior art and are also maintaining that Page in view of Gibson lacks teaching of corresponding limitation in claim 9 regarding “the controller is configured… the removal apparatus determining conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor”, and it is acknowledged that Page in view of Gibson does lack such teaching.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10, is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page in view of Gibson, as above, and further in view of the Escapenet English translation of patent publication CN 112573641A (publication ‘641).
New claims 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page in view of Gibson, as above, and further in view of the Escapenet English translation of patent publication CN 112573641A (publication ‘641), and additionally in view of Stencel PGPUBS Document US 2007/0131033 (Stencel) for claim 11 and additionally in view of Cella et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0041835 (Cella) for claims 12 and 13, respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of independent claims 1 and 9, the clause “conditions of a removal method or removing the inhibitor from the concentrate” are respectively ambiguous regarding whether such “removal method” and “removing the inhibitor” refer back to or are related to the preceding recitations of “removing” in the respective claims, also in these clauses “conditions of” is vague and of unclear scope (referring to how and/or when removing of inhibitor is performed?) .
In claim 11, “high value…environmental factor” is a vague relative phrase, since no criteria or standard for determining what is high versus not high for any particular environmental factor with the term “an environmental factor” in itself being vague and ambiguous (does such factor concern a characteristic of the water being treated, having a measurable, significant effect on the index value and threshold value of the inhibitor?).
In claim 12, “machine learning by feeding back” is non-idiomatic, vague and confusing (“machine learning with feedback…” is suggested).
In claim 13, both “classification of a plurality of the index values” and “from neural networks” are non-idiomatic, vague and confusing with “the index values” (plural) lacking antecedent basis, being inconsistent with “the index value” (singular) in each of claims 1, 2 and 12, from which claim 13 depends.
Claim Interpretation
For each of independent claims 1 and 9, recitations of “conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor” are interpreted as reading on any two or more method step conditions of the method step of removing of the inhibitor.
For claim 11, “a high value for an environmental factor” is interpreted as being any characteristic of the water being treated, having a measurable, significant effect on the index value and threshold value of the inhibitor.
For claim 12, “machine learning by feeding back the index value…” is interpreted as being “machine learning based at least in part of feedback data analysis.
For claim 13, “multivariate analysis…plurality of the index values, or from neural networks…” is interpreted as concerning an option of the threshold value being calculated based on multivariate analysis as recited or being based on neural networking.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0241956 (Page) in view of the Gibson et al Non-Patent Literature Publication entitled "Measuring and mitigating inhibition during quantitative real time PCR analysis of viral nucleic acid extracts from large-volume environmental water samples" (Gibson) and the Escapenet English translation of patent publication CN 112573641A (publication ‘641).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document and Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 1, Page discloses a water treatment method comprising:
concentrating sample water microorganisms in sample water to obtain a purified concentrate comprising the microorganisms ([0052-0055 regarding sample concentration and separation steps including filtration, magnetic and electrophoretic separation and microfluidic concentration] and [0129 and 0132 pertaining to such concentration treatment steps pertaining to water samples]); and
measuring, performed after the determining or the removing, of measuring the microorganisms contained in the concentrate [0056 regarding “microbiological analysis techniques”].
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Page, by also requiring:
detecting an inhibitor contained in the sample water or the concentrate; and,
determining whether to perform removing of inhibitor based on a result of the detection in the detecting, and
wherein, in the removing of inhibitor, conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor.
Gibson teaches methods for accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality including groundwater and drinking water (Abstract and Section 1. Introduction, 1st paragraph), including identifying, thus detecting inhibition, i.e. “an inhibitor” in sample water or concentrate and teaches that such inhibition makes identification of pathogens more problematic (Page 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, and Section 2.2 on page 5), and
also suggests “mitigating sample inhibition following “measuring”, i.e. determining presence of inhibitors, thus determining whether to perform removing of inhibitor based on a result of the detection in the detecting by techniques such as sample dilution (Page 4, 4th paragraph), thus performing inhibition mitigation, and reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination in the form of nucleic acid extracts.
Additionally, publication ‘641 teaches a wastewater treatment plant and process for treating wastewater, in part by utilizing microorganisms, in which presence of bioinhibitory substances damage the organisms used in the wastewater treatment, reducing its efficiency and impacting its normal operation [0003-0004].
Publication 641 further teaches obtaining a bioinhibition index value of the wastewater to be treated, comparing it to a preset threshold, and determining a method for removing of contaminants from the wastewater including amount of allowed to enter the treatment system as a result of comparing index values to threshold in combination with determining water quality characteristics [0005-0007].
In addition, Publication ‘641 additionally teaches, that upon the water quality characteristics not meeting preset treatment conditions or ‘threshold conditions’, treating the biological inhibition index [0008, 0010] and including a notification to treat the bioinhibition indicators, thus removing inhibitors from the wastewater, by pretreating the wastewater [0062-0064].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating water for preparation of measuring microorganisms contained in the water to have modified the Page method, by including such steps of inhibitor detecting and of determining whether to perform removing of inhibitor based on a result of the detection in the detecting, and
wherein, in the removing of inhibitor, conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor, as cumulatively taught by Gibson and publication ‘641, in order to better assure accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality, and for reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination and prevent excessive reduction of microorganisms in the water being treated, including in the obtained sample water from such water being treated.
For claim 2, Gibson and ‘641 further suggest determining whether an index value of an inhibitor has reached a threshold value and upon reaching such threshold value, performing the removing (Gibson at section 2.2 regarding evaluating sample inhibition quantitatively, and page 4, 2nd paragraph concerning “statistical and kinetic modeling approaches and identification and quantification of inhibition, and teaching of ‘641 of upon the water quality characteristics not meeting preset treatment conditions or ‘threshold conditions’, treating the biological inhibition index [0008, 0010] and including a notification to treat the bioinhibition indicators, thus removing inhibitors from the wastewater, by pretreating the wastewater [0062-0064]).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, by such determining of the index value of inhibitor having reached a threshold value, as cumulatively taught by Gibson and publication ‘641, in order to better assure accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality, and for reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination and prevent excessive reduction of microorganisms in the obtained sample water.
For claim 4, Gibson further suggests wherein the detecting is performed after the concentrating, and
in the detecting, the inhibitor contained in the concentrate is detected (suggested in Section 2.1 regarding measuring inhibition relative to filtration and/or concentration of large-volume water samples).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, by such detecting step being of inhibitor obtained in the concentrate, as taught by Gibson, inherently to obtain a more complete determination of inhibitor present in the water being sampled.
For claim 5, Gibson further teaches wherein the detecting is performed before the concentrating, and
in the detecting, the inhibitor contained in the sample water is detected (suggested on page 4, 4th paragraph regarding “sample inhibition” and seeding of samples).
Again, publication ‘641 teaches obtaining a bioinhibition index value of the wastewater to be treated, comparing it to a preset threshold, and determining a method for removing of contaminants from the wastewater including amount of allowed to enter the treatment system as a result of comparing index values to threshold in combination with determining water quality characteristics [0005-0007].
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, by such manner of performing the detecting step, as cumulatively taught by Gibson and publication ‘641, in order to also obtain a sampled value of inhibitor level representative of the water being introduced for treatment, so as to optimize the water treatment effectiveness, and determine maximum capacity of wastewater that can be effectively treated.
For claim 6, Gibson further teaches wherein the concentrating includes a primary concentrating and a secondary concentrating performed after the primary concentrating ([0052 regarding an initial concentration system] and [0054 regarding “the concentrated sample may be further concentrated…”]).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, by such manner of performing the concentrating, as taught by Gibson, inherently in order to maximally obtain a more complete determination of inhibitor present in the water being sampled.
For claim 8, Page and Gibson together suggest wherein the detecting is performed after the secondary concentrating, and in the detecting, the inhibitor contained in a secondary concentrate is detected (see Page at [0052, 0054 and 0055 regarding initial and further concentration followed by inhibitor or interferent removal techniques and Gibson at (Page 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, and Section 2.2 on page 5 regarding inhibition detection of concentrated samples).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, by such manner of performing the concentrating, as taught by Gibson, inherently in order to maximally obtain a more complete determination of inhibitor present in the water being sampled.
For independent claim 9, Page discloses or suggests a control apparatus which comprises:
at least one sensor configured to detect concentrated microorganisms [0056 regarding analytical techniques and biosensors]; and,
a controller operable to initiate removal of the inhibitor, and to control a water treatment process so that the concentrate passes through a removal apparatus operable to remove the inhibitor from the concentrate prior to measurement of the microorganisms ([0055 regarding inhibitor or interferent removal techniques] and [0065 pertaining to automation of the system workstations through platforms so as to increase work flow, operating efficiencies and speed of operations, i.e. operations and method steps carried out by the system, hence inherently comprising one or more controllers to effect such automation]).
Claim 9, and claim 10 dependent from claim 9 differ from Page by requiring:
the or a sensor being configured to detect an inhibitor contained in sample water or a concentrate purified by concentrating microorganisms in the sample water; and
the controller to be configured to determine whether to remove the inhibitor from the concentrate based on a result of the detection by the sensor, wherein, in the removing of inhibitor, conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor.
Gibson teaches methods for accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality including groundwater and drinking water (Abstract and Section 1. Introduction, 1st paragraph), including identifying, thus detecting inhibition, i.e. “an inhibitor” in sample water or concentrate and teaches that such inhibition makes identification of pathogens more problematic, thus teaches one or more sensors for detecting the presence or magnitude of inhibiting substances (Page 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, and Section 2.2 on page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing control systems for treating water preparation of measuring of microorganisms contained in the water to have modified the Page apparatus or system, to have also included one or more sensors for detecting inhibitor presence or quantity, as taught by Gibson, to accurately assess the actual level of inhibitors present in the water on an on-going basis.
Gibson also suggests “mitigating sample inhibition following “measuring”, i.e. determining presence of inhibitors by techniques such as sample dilution (Page 4, 4th paragraph), thus inhibition mitigation, thus reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination in the form of nucleic acid extracts.
Also, publication ‘641 teaches a wastewater treatment plant and process for treating wastewater, in part by utilizing microorganisms, in which presence of bioinhibitory substances damage the organisms used in the wastewater treatment, reducing its efficiency and impacting its normal operation [0003-0004].
Publication 641 further teaches obtaining a bioinhibition index value of the wastewater to be treated, comparing it to a preset threshold, and determining a method for removing of contaminants from the wastewater including amount of allowed to enter the treatment system as a result of comparing index values to threshold in combination with determining water quality characteristics [0005-0007].
In addition, Publication ‘641 additionally teaches, that upon the water quality characteristics not meeting preset treatment conditions or ‘threshold conditions’, treating the biological inhibition index [0008, 0010] and including a notification to treat the bioinhibition indicators, thus removing inhibitors from the wastewater, by pretreating the wastewater [0062-0064].
Publication ‘641 teaches such treating of the wastewater and treating to remove the bioinhibitors or inhibitors being effected by a controller in the form of a computer device which includes one or more processors 41 and a memory 42 with a program storage area and a data storage area having a computer-readable storage medium [0106-0111].
It would have correspondingly obvious to have configured the Page controller or controllers to have been operable for controlling steps of inhibitor detecting and removing as now claimed, such that wherein in the removing, conditions of a removable method for removing the inhibitor are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor, as cumulatively taught by Gibson and publication ‘641, in order to better assure accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality, and for reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination.
For claim 10, Page in combination with publication ‘641, also discloses a water treatment system comprising:
a control apparatus (Page at [0055 regarding inhibitor or interferent removal techniques] and [0065 pertaining to automation of the system workstations through platforms so as to increase work flow, operating efficiencies and speed of operations, i.e. operations and method steps carried out by the system, hence inherently comprising one or more controllers to effect such automation]),
a concentration apparatus operable to concentrate the microorganisms in the sample water to purify the concentrate ([0052-0055 regarding sample concentration and separation steps including filtration, magnetic and electrophoretic separation and microfluidic concentration] and [0129 and 0132 pertaining to such concentration treatment steps pertaining to water samples]);
the removal apparatus operable to remove the inhibitor from the concentrate [0055 regarding “inhibitor or interferent removal techniques”]; and,
a measurement apparatus operable to measure the microorganisms in the concentrate [0056 regarding “microbiological analysis techniques”].
Claim 10 also differs in requiring the control apparatus to be configured to determine whether to remove the inhibitor from the concentrate based on a result of the detection by the sensor, wherein, in the removing of inhibitor, conditions of a removal method for removing the inhibitor from the concentrate are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor.
Gibson teaches methods for accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality including groundwater and drinking water (Abstract and Section 1. Introduction, 1st paragraph), including identifying, thus detecting inhibition, i.e. “an inhibitor” in sample water or concentrate and teaches that such inhibition makes identification of pathogens more problematic, by one or more sensors for detecting the presence or magnitude of inhibiting substances (Page 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, and Section 2.2 on page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing control systems for treating water preparation of measuring of microorganisms contained in the water to have modified the Page apparatus or system, to have also included one or more sensors configured for detecting inhibitor presence or quantity, as taught by Gibson, to accurately assess the actual level of inhibitors present in the water on an on-going basis.
Gibson also suggests “mitigating sample inhibition following “measuring”, i.e. determining presence of inhibitors by techniques such as sample dilution (Page 4, 4th paragraph), thus inhibition mitigation, thus reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination in the form of nucleic acid extracts.
Also, publication ‘641 teaches a wastewater treatment plant and process for treating wastewater, in part by utilizing microorganisms, in which presence of bioinhibitory substances damage the organisms used in the wastewater treatment, reducing its efficiency and impacting its normal operation [0003-0004].
Publication 641 further teaches obtaining a bioinhibition index value of the wastewater to be treated, comparing it to a preset threshold, and determining a method for removing of contaminants from the wastewater including amount of allowed to enter the treatment system as a result of comparing index values to threshold in combination with determining water quality characteristics [0005-0007].
In addition, Publication ‘641 additionally teaches, that upon the water quality characteristics not meeting preset treatment conditions or ‘threshold conditions’, treating the biological inhibition index [0008, 0010] and including a notification to treat the bioinhibition indicators, thus removing inhibitors from the wastewater, by pretreating the wastewater [0062-0064].
Publication ‘641 teaches such treating of the wastewater and treating to remove the bioinhibitors or inhibitors being effected by a controller in the form of a computer device which includes one or more processors 41 and a memory 42 with a program storage area and a data storage area having a computer-readable storage medium [0106-0111].
Thus it would have correspondingly obvious to have configured the Page control apparatus to have been configured as recited in claim 9, hence be configured for controlling steps of inhibitor detecting and removing as now claimed, such that wherein in the removing, conditions of a removable method for removing the inhibitor are determined according to an index value of the inhibitor, as cumulatively taught by Gibson and publication ‘641, in order to better assure accurate quantitative assessments of microbial water quality, and for reducing magnitude of false negatives for quantifying microbial contamination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0241956 (Page) in view of the Gibson et al Non-Patent Literature Publication entitled "Measuring and mitigating inhibition during quantitative real time PCR analysis of viral nucleic acid extracts from large-volume environmental water samples" (Gibson) and the Escapenet English translation of patent publication CN 112573641A (publication ‘641), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Stencel PGPUBS Document US 2007/0131033 (Stencel).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents and Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 11 further differs by requiring wherein the threshold value is set from an empirical value indicating a high value for an environmental factor.
Publication ‘641 further teaches the inhibitor index and corresponding threshold of inhibitor being updated based on environmental water quality, i.e. “environmental” characteristics which may vary between relatively low meeting pre-set treatment conditions and relatively high values [0006-0010].
Publication ‘641 teaches such treating of the wastewater and treating to remove the bio-inhibitors or inhibitors being effected by a controller in the form of a computer device which includes one or more processors 41 and a memory 42 with a program storage area and a data storage area having a computer-readable storage medium [0106-0111]. Publication ‘641 also specifically teaches use of computer memory receiving calculation requests concerning numerical information [0109].
Stencel teaches monitoring of an undesired byproduct or foam contaminant of wastewater treatment [0003].
Thus, it would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, such that the threshold value is set from such empirical value, as cumulatively taught by publication ‘641 and Stencel, with determination of an appropriate threshold value being in part based on empirical data [0033], so as to enable accounting for water quality environmental characteristics which may influence setting of threshold values.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0241956 (Page) in view of the Gibson et al Non-Patent Literature Publication entitled "Measuring and mitigating inhibition during quantitative real time PCR analysis of viral nucleic acid extracts from large-volume environmental water samples" (Gibson) and the Escapenet English translation of patent publication CN 112573641A (publication ‘641), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Cella et al PGPUBS Document US 2019/0041835 (Cella).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents and Escapenet English translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 12 further differs by requiring wherein the threshold value is calculated based on machine learning by feeding back the index value of the inhibitor (i.e. “employing feedback to determine index value of the inhibitor).
Publication ‘641 further teaches the inhibitor index and corresponding threshold of inhibitor being updated based on environmental water quality, i.e. “environmental” characteristics which may vary between relatively low meeting pre-set treatment conditions and relatively high values [0006-0010].
Publication ‘641 teaches such treating of the wastewater and treating to remove the bioinhibitors or inhibitors being effected by a controller in the form of a computer device which includes one or more processors 41 and a memory 42 with a program storage area and a data storage area having a computer-readable storage medium [0106-0111]. Publication ‘641 also teaches use of computer memory receiving calculation requests concerning numerical information [0109].
Cella teaches wastewater treatment [0560] in which computer processors determine threshold values [0499] and correlate parameter data to each other using any of a plurality of data processing and optimization techniques including industry-specific feedback [0320, 0351-0356], machine learning [0320, 0336], multivariate analysis [0915] and neural networking [0877-0900].
Thus, it would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, such that the threshold value for the inhibitor is calculated based on machine learning, as cumulatively taught by ‘641 and Cella, in order to more accurately calculate the threshold value by optimally accounting for interaction of the effect of a plurality of complex, changeable water quality characteristics of the water being treated.
Claim 13 further differs by requiring wherein the threshold value is calculated based on results obtained from multivariate analysis including principal component regression analysis and classification of a plurality of the index values, or alternatively is calculated from neural networks (i.e. “a neural network”).
Publication ‘641 further teaches the inhibitor index and corresponding threshold of inhibitor being updated based on environmental water quality, i.e. “environmental” characteristics which may vary between relatively low meeting pre-set treatment conditions and relatively high values [0006-0010].
Publication ‘641 teaches such treating of the wastewater and treating to remove the bioinhibitors or inhibitors being effected by a controller in the form of a computer device which includes one or more processors 41 and a memory 42 with a program storage area and a data storage area having a computer-readable storage medium [0106-0111]. Publication ‘641 also teaches use of computer memory receiving calculation requests concerning numerical information [0109].
Cella teaches wastewater treatment [0560] in which computer processors determine threshold values [0499] and correlate parameter data to each other using any of a plurality of data processing and optimization techniques including industry-specific feedback [0320, 0351-0356], machine learning [0320, 0336], multivariate analysis [0915] and neural networking [0877-0900].
Thus, it would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have also modified the Page method, such that the threshold value for the inhibitor is calculated based on machine learning, as cumulatively taught by ‘641 and Cella, in order to more accurately calculate the threshold value by optimally accounting for interaction of the effect of a plurality of complex, changeable water quality characteristics of the water being treated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art, including the prior art applied against claims 1-6 and 8-10 above in view of further recitation of wherein the concentrating includes primary followed by secondary concentration , and in the detecting, the inhibitor contained in a primary concentrate of the primary concentration, which comprises the microorganisms is detected. Both Page and Gibson suggest detection of inhibition following completion of concentration of the water samples, thus to accurately quantify amount of inhibitor and inhibitor treatment.
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 Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/12/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773