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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 11 is directed to a system for controlling a membrane separation unit of an aqueous liquid effluent treatment plant, which fall into a statutory category, i.e. a process. However, the claims recite an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 11 is directed towards a mathematical concept, i.e. controlling conversation rate and amount of chemical added obtaining data and manipulating said data. The claim is directed towards calculating and transmitting data.
Nothing recited precludes the cited steps from being practically performed in the mind, or with the assistance of basic physical aids, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). The claim has not been integrated into a particular practical application. The claim is directed towards calculating data and transmitting data. The “first means” and “second means” may adjust, which is a practical application, it is not particular. There is nothing particular about using data to adjust “conversion rate” or “amount of chemical to be added”. Once the optimum set point is selected from the first, second and third/forth, it is “applied”. Simply adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exceptions or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea do not amount to a particular practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as established in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claim are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art of water treatment. The claims are directed towards merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not recite any elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely recites “means” for adjusting. Claim 11 is directed towards a system for controlling a membrane separation unit, wherein the membrane separation unit receives the effluent, injecting the chemical compound and measuring the pH value of the retentate and the control system comprises means for adjusting, means of measuring pH and calculating and transmitting means. Further, claim 11 does not disclose include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC). See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, dependent claims 1-10 and 12-16 are also precluded as these claims recite merely an abstract idea/mathematical concept, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see analysis above).
Claim 9 and claim 10, which is dependent upon claim 9, are directed towards a computer program, which is not patent eligible (see MPEP 2106.03). Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are not herein examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 11:
first means for adjusting the conversion rate of the membrane separation unit
second means for adjusting an amount of at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated
a means for measuring the pH of the retentate
calculation and transmission means programmed to (a)receive a measured value of the pH of the retentate from the pH measuring means, (b)calculate based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate at least one optimum setpoint value to avoid clogging of the membrane separation unit and/or precipitation of ionic species initially present in the effluent to be treated in the retentate, (c) said at least one optimum setpoint value is applied to the corresponding parameter of the membrane separation unit
Claim 13:
second means for measuring the value of at least one other parameter of the retentate
Claim 16:
third means for measuring at least one temperature
These claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. .Each of these terms, which recite a “means”, is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed function. The as-originally filed specification does not define the structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claims 1-16 are not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 1888209 B1 (hereinafter EP 209).
Regarding claim 11, EP 209 discloses a system for controlling a membrane separation unit of an aqueous liquid effluent treatment plant, the membrane separation unit receiving the effluent to be treated, producing a retentate and a permeate and comprising a system for injecting at least one chemical compound into the effluent to be treated (see EP 209 figure 1; paragraphs 0011-0013, 0037).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. Further, it is noted that the elements, membrane separation unit, effluent to be treated, producing a retentate and a permeate and comprising a system for injecting at least one chemical compound into the effluent to be treated, are recited in the preamble for the intended use of the system. Additionally, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
EP 209 discloses first means for adjusting the conversion rate of the membrane separation unit (see EP 209, controller/computer, sensors/probes, figure 1, paragraphs 0034-0038).
EP 209 discloses second means for adjusting an amount of at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated (see EP 209, pump(s), valve(s), figure 1, paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0046
EP 209 discloses means for measuring the pH of the retentate (see EP 209 pH sensor/monitor, paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0013, 0022, 0032-0033, 0038).
EP 209 discloses calculation and transmission means connected to the means for measuring the pH of the retentate and programmed to (a)receive a measured value of the pH of the retentate from the pH measuring means, (b)calculate based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate at least one optimum setpoint value to avoid clogging of the membrane separation unit and/or precipitation of ionic species initially present in the effluent to be treated in the retentate, said at least one setpoint value being selected from:(i) a first setpoint value corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated for a current conversion rate,(ii)a second setpoint value corresponding to a maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added,(iii) a pair of a third and fourth setpoint values corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated combined with a maximum conversion rate,(c)transmit said calculated setpoint value to the corresponding adjustment means (see EP 209 software/computer/controller/processor, recorded readings, empirically predetermined measurements/thresholds, figures 2-7, paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0028, 0034- 0035, 0037, 0038 (EP 209 discloses “means for continuously comparing said recorded reading to measurement values for said one or more parameters of a retentate obtained from an aqueous medium of the same composition under the same process conditions which values have experimentally been predetermined; and (4) means for automatically adding a quantity of scale inhibitor to the RO system located upstream of the membrane, said quantity having been experimentally predetermined to prevent scale formation under said conditions” (see EP 209 paragraph 0037).).
In the alternative, if EP 209 does not disclose a “at least one setpoint value being selected from:(i) a first setpoint value corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated for a current conversion rate,(ii)a second setpoint value corresponding to a maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added,(iii) a pair of a third and fourth setpoint values corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated combined with a maximum conversion rate,(c)transmit said calculated setpoint value to the corresponding adjustment means”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by EP 209.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent and/or maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added in the method and system of EP 209, which is continuously monitoring various parameters, including pH, and automatically adjusting the rate of adding different scale inhibitors, because it would assist with achieving the objective of preventing scale formation (see EP 209 paragraphs 0013, 0015-0016, 0037, 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent and/or maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added in the method and system of EP 209, which is continuously monitoring various parameters, including pH, and automatically adjusting the rate of adding different scale inhibitors, because it would assist with reducing clogging of the membrane/RO system, because it would enhance productivity of the system, to reduce cost of operating system and method, to reduce cost of materials/resources and to assist in achieving a balance between achieving treated water and operation cost.
Regarding claim 12, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, EP 209 discloses that the calculation and transmission means are programmed to receive a plurality of measurements of the pH of the retentate, to verify at each received new measurement whether the measured value of the pH of the retentate reaches at least one predetermined threshold value or varies by at least one predetermined amount, then, to calculate said at least one setpoint value and transmit it to the corresponding adjustment means when said at least one predetermined threshold value or predetermined amount is reached (see rejection of claim 1; see EP 209 paragraphs 0013, 0037, 0038).
EP 209 discloses that the retentate is continuously monitoring/measuring the retentate, including the pH of the retentate, and “(2) means for continuously recording a reading of one or more physical parameters of the retentate related to the presence of particles of potentially scale forming substances in the retentate; (3) means for continuously comparing said recorded reading to measurement values for said one or more parameters of a retentate obtained from an aqueous medium of the same composition under the same process conditions which values have experimentally been predetermined; and (4) means for automatically adding a quantity of scale inhibitor to the RO system located upstream of the membrane, said quantity having been experimentally predetermined to prevent scale formation under said conditions.” (see EP 209 paragraph 0037).
Regarding the claimed predetermined amount/predetermined threshold value, it is understood that predetermined amount/predetermined threshold value may be any amount/threshold. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. . “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 13, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, EP 209 discloses second means for measuring the value of at least one other parameter of the retentate selected from the conductivity and a concentration of at least one ionic species likely to precipitate (see rejection of claim 1; see EP 209 figures 3, 5-7; paragraphs 0005, 0012, 0013, 0022, 0031-0032, 0035, 0038, 0040, 0048, 0050, 0057).
EP 209 discloses that the calculation and transmission means are programmed to receive from the second measuring means a measured value of the at least one other parameter of the retentate, optionally to determine a variation of the measured value of the at least one other parameter of the retentate and to calculate the at least one setpoint value based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of the at least one other parameter of the retentate, optionally based on the measured value of the at least one other parameter for which a variation is determined (see rejection of claims 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 14, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, EP 209 discloses the calculation and transmission means are programmed, when a variation is determined for both the measured value of the conductivity and at least one concentration of at least one ionic species likely to precipitate, calculate said at least one setpoint value based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of said at least one concentration for which a variation has been determined (see rejection of claims 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 15, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, EP 209 discloses the second measuring means comprise means for measuring a concentration of at least one ionic species selected from a calcium ion, a carbonate ion, a sulphate ion, a silicon ion, a barium ion, a strontium ion, an iron II ion, an iron III ion, a fluoride ion (see rejection of claim 13; see EP 209 figure 4; paragraphs 0005, 0015, 0033, 0035, 0050-0052).
Regarding claim 16, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, EP 209 discloses third means for measuring at least one temperature selected from the temperature of the effluent to be treated and the temperature of the retentate, and in that the calculation and transmission means are programmed to calculate said at least one setpoint value based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of the at least one temperature (see rejection of claims 11-13; see EP 209 paragraphs 0020, 0041).
Regarding claim 1, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, EP 209 discloses a method for controlling a membrane separation unit of an aqueous liquid effluent treatment plant, the membrane separation unit receiving the effluent to be treated, producing a retentate and a permeate and comprising a system for injecting at least one chemical compound into the effluent to be treated (see rejection of claim 1; see EP 209 paragraphs 0011-0013, 0037, 0038 and figure 1).
EP 209 discloses a pH value of the retentate is measured (see rejection of claim 1; see EP 209 pH sensor/monitor, paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0013, 0022, 0032-0033, 0038).
EP 209 discloses (b)based on the measured pH value of the retentate, at least one optimum setpoint value is determined to avoid clogging of the membrane separation unit and/or precipitation of ionic species initially present in the effluent to be treated in the retentate and selected from (i) a first setpoint value corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated for a current conversion rate of the membrane separation unit, (ii)a second setpoint value corresponding to a maximum conversion rate when no chemical compound is added, (iii) a pair of a third and fourth setpoint values corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated combined with a maximum conversion rate, (c) said at least one optimum setpoint value is applied to the corresponding parameter of the membrane separation unit (see EP 209 software/computer/controller/processor, recorded readings, empirically predetermined measurements/thresholds, figures 2-7, paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0028, 0034- 0035, 0037 (EP 209 discloses “means for continuously comparing said recorded reading to measurement values for said one or more parameters of a retentate obtained from an aqueous medium of the same composition under the same process conditions which values have experimentally been predetermined; and (4) means for automatically adding a quantity of scale inhibitor to the RO system located upstream of the membrane, said quantity having been experimentally predetermined to prevent scale formation under said conditions” (see EP 209 paragraph 0037).).
In the alternative, if EP 209 does not disclose a “at least one setpoint value being selected from:(i) a first setpoint value corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated for a current conversion rate,(ii)a second setpoint value corresponding to a maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added,(iii) a pair of a third and fourth setpoint values corresponding to a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent to be treated combined with a maximum conversion rate,(c)transmit said calculated setpoint value to the corresponding adjustment means”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by EP 209.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent and/or maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added in the method and system of EP 209, which is continuously monitoring various parameters, including pH, and automatically adjusting the rate of adding different scale inhibitors, because it would assist with achieving the objective of preventing scale formation (see EP 209 paragraphs 0013, 0015-0016, 0037, 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a minimum amount of the at least one chemical compound to be added to the effluent and/or maximum conversion rate of the membrane separation unit when no chemical compound is added in the method and system of EP 209, which is continuously monitoring various parameters, including pH, and automatically adjusting the rate of adding different scale inhibitors, because it would assist with reducing clogging of the membrane/RO system, because it would enhance productivity of the system, to reduce cost of operating system and method, to reduce cost of materials/resources and to assist in achieving a balance between achieving treated water and operation cost.
Regarding claim 2, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, EP 209 discloses it is proceeded with an iteration of step (a), at each iteration, it is verified during a step (a') whether the value of the pH of the retentate measured in step (a) reaches at least one predetermined threshold value or varies by at least one predetermined amount, then steps (b) to (c) are implemented when said at least one predetermined threshold value or predetermined amount is reached (see rejection of claims 1, 11, 12).
Herein, the term verified is understood being accurate, test or confirmed. Herein, the claimed “it is verified during a step (a')” is deemed to disclose in EP 209 since a plain reading of EP 209 would be that the measurement is accurate or verified.
Regarding claim 3, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, EP 209 discloses during step (a), the value of at least one other parameter of the retentate selected from the conductivity and a concentration of at least one ionic species likely to precipitate is also measured, optionally, a variation of the value of the at least one other parameter of the retentate is determined, and during step (b), the at least one optimum setpoint value is determined based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of the at least one other parameter of the retentate, optionally based on the measured value of the at least one other parameter for which a variation is determined (see rejection of claim 13).
Regarding claim 4, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, EP 209 discloses when a variation is determined for both the value of the conductivity and for a concentration of at least one ionic species which is likely to precipitate, said at least one setpoint value is determined based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of said at least one concentration for which a variation has been determined (see rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 5, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, EP 209 discloses during step (a) a concentration of at least one ionic species selected from a calcium ion, a carbonate ion, a sulphate ion, a silicon ion, a barium ion, a strontium ion, an iron II ion, an iron III ion, a fluoride ion (see rejection of claims 13 and 15; see EP 209 figure 4; paragraphs 0005, 0015, 0033, 0035, 0050-0052).
Regarding claim 6, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, EP 209 discloses during step (a), at least one temperature selected from the temperature of the effluent to be treated and the temperature of the retentate is measured, and during step (b), said at least one setpoint value is determined based on the measured value of the pH of the retentate and the measured value of the at least one temperature (see rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 7, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, EP 209 discloses during step (a) the pH of the retentate is determined, and optionally the at least one other parameter of the retentate and/or the at least one temperature, by in-line measurements (see rejection of claims 11, 13, 16).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3685908 A1 (hereinafter EP 908).
Regarding claim 8, EP 209 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, EP 209 does not disclose a prior step of building up a database which associates one or more setpoint value(s) with sets of parameter values, these parameters comprising the pH of the retentate, at least one operating parameter of the same membrane separation unit, and optionally at least one other parameter selected from the temperature of the retentate, the temperature of the effluent to be treated, the conductivity of the retentate and a concentration in the retentate of at least one species likely to precipitate.
EP 908 discloses a system and method for detecting membrane fouling (see EP 908 abstract, figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0014-0020) EP 908 discloses that the system and method comprises sensors, such as temperature, flow, or pressure sensors, a data processor and/or means for transferring data, wherein the processor stores data for detecting fouling and/or to understand the permeate and retentate streams (see EP 908 paragraphs 0020-0023, 0074-0075, 0083). EP 908 discloses system and method stores data in a database and uses the data to operate the system (see EP 908 claim 16; paragraphs 0043, 0089).
EP 908 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. filtration system, monitoring and controlling separation unit/ filtration system and/or reduce/monitor/control fouling of a membrane.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify EP 809 by incorporating a database system, as disclosed in EP 908, to store the data obtained during the preliminary testing and/or initial filtration runs throughout the system of EP 209, because it would assist with operating of the system, because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with additional data of the system, and/or because it would assist with providing additional data for the controller/processor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify EP 809 by incorporating a database system, as disclosed in EP 908, to store the data obtained during the preliminary testing and/or initial filtration runs throughout the system of EP 209, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide and store data of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773