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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 43-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. The limitation in the claim should apparently read “wherein the sterilization device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-42 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.
Regarding claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 31 and 33 recites the limitation "the dirty water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because the claims do not introduce a dirty water.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “wherein the system comprises a pH sensor for adjusting the pH value of the dirty water”. This is not clear because a pH sensor is conventionally known as a measurement device, not an adjustment device. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sensor” in claim 31 is used by the claim to mean “adjuster” while the accepted meaning is a measurement device. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as a pH sensor for measuring the pH value of the dirty water.
Claims 36 and 37 recite the limitation "the dirty water processing apparatus". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claims do not introduce a dirty water processing apparatus. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a dirty water processing apparatus…”
Claims 2-42 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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.
Claims 1-12, 26, 27, 31-33, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pahlman (WO 2006032731).
Regarding Claim 1: Pahlman teaches a clean-in-place system configured to clean one or more objects in fluid communication with the system, the system being further configured to process and recycle one or more cleaning agents and/or water, wherein minimal or no wastewater is released from the system, the system comprising:
one or more process water tanks for storing water (Fig. 1, element 7);
at least two tanks for storing cleaning agents, said two tanks comprising:
a first cleaning agent tank for storing a first cleaning agent comprising one or more chemicals, and/or for storing used first cleaning agent (element 9);
a second cleaning agent tank for storing a second cleaning agent comprising one or more chemicals and/or for storing used second cleaning agent (element 11);
one or more forward lines configured to forward liquid process water, the first and/or second cleaning agent from the system to the one or more objects in fluid communication with the system in order to clean or rinse the one or more objects (element 12);
one or more return lines (element 19, [0010]) for returning liquid from the one or more objects to the system, wherein the first cleaning agent tank and the second cleaning agent tank are configured to receive the used first and second cleaning agent, respectively, from or at least partly from the return lines [0010]; and
a plurality of recovery tanks for storing cleaning agents or water (elements 8, 20).
Regarding Claim 2: Pahlman further teaches the first cleaning agent is an alkaline solution comprising sodium hydroxide [0014].
Regarding Claim 3: Pahlman further teaches that the second cleaning agent is an acidic solution [0014]. Though not expressly disclosed as nitric acid or phosphoric acid, the second cleaning agent tank is considered fully capable of storing such acids. As no additional structure is required, the system of Pahlman reads on the limitation of the claims.
Regarding Claim 4: Pahlman further teaches wherein the plurality of recovery tanks for storing cleaning agents and/or water comprises:
a first cleaning agent recovery tank (element 20) for storing used or diluted first cleaning agent received from the one or more return lines ([0009] teaches there may be several collection containers);
a second cleaning agent recovery tank (element 20) for storing used and/or diluted second cleaning agent received from the one or more return lines ([0009] teaches there may be several collection containers); and
a dirty water recovery tank (element 8) for storing dirty water received from the one or more return lines.
Regarding Claim 5: Pahlman further teaches a clean water recovery tank (element 8) for storing clean water received from the one or more return lines [0011].
Regarding Claim 6: Pahlman further teaches wherein the system further comprises one or more water recovery tanks (element 8) for storing dirty water, clean water, and/or process water.
Regarding Claim 7: Pahlman further teaches the system further comprises a monitoring system comprising one or more sensors (element 14) configured to monitor the system or parts of the system [0009].
Regarding Claim 8: Pahlman further teaches wherein the one or more sensors include conductivity sensors or pH sensors [0009].
Regarding Claim 9: Pahlman further teaches wherein the sensors are configured to monitor the water, the first cleaning agent and/or the second cleaning agent in the one or more return lines [0009].
Regarding Claim 10: Pahlman further teaches that the monitoring system comprises a conductivity sensor configured to measure the electrical conductivity of the water [0009].
Regarding Claim 11: Pahlman further teaches wherein the system is configured to direct the used water from the one or more objects into the plurality of recovery tanks under one or more predetermined conditions monitored by the monitoring system [0011-0012].
Regarding Claim 12: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the one or more predetermined conditions comprise a turbidity threshold value relating to the turbidity of the water and/or an electrical conductivity threshold value relating to the electrical conductivity of the water [0009].
Regarding Claim 26: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the plurality of recovery tanks comprise a dirty water recovery tank (element 8) for recovering dirty water from the one or more return lines.
Regarding Claim 27: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the system further comprises a dirty water processing apparatus fluidly connected to the dirty water recovery tank, wherein the dirty water processing apparatus is configured to process the dirty water from the dirty water recovery tank in order to separate solids from the dirty water ([0010] teaches the dirty water may be treated to remove the material).
Regarding Claims 31 and 32: Pahlman further teaches the system is configured for adjusting the pH value of dirty water, by providing an alkali container or acidic container for adding alkali solution or acidic solution, respectively, to the dirty water ([0012] teaches that new solution may be fed into the containers vis pipe 21, valve 22, and valves 7b to 11b).
Regarding Claim 33: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches a pH sensor for measuring the pH value of dirty water [0009, 0010, 0014].
Regarding Claim 42: Pahlman further teaches an emergency tank (element 10) for storing liquid.
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tastayre et al. (FR 2923737, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 13: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 12 as set forth above. Pahlman teaches that the system is configured to direct the used water into the recovery tank [0010], but does not expressly disclose the system is configured to direct the used water into the recovery tank when the turbidity or electrical conductivity threshold value is exceeded. However, Tastayre teaches a similar CIP system configured to direct used rinsing water to recovery tanks based on an exceeded threshold value of a physicochemical parameter of the water including turbidity or conductivity in order to beneficially remove the initial rinses thus reducing the volume of water used (pg. 2, first full paragraph and second full paragraph; pg. 3, third full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman such that it is configured to direct the used water into the recovery tank when the turbidity or conductivity threshold value is exceeded in order to reduce the volume of water used, as taught by Tastayre.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laufenberg et al. (US 5,888,311).
Regarding Claims 14-16: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Pahlman does not expressly disclose the system further comprises a first cleaning agent processing apparatus fluidly connected to the first and/or second cleaning agent tank. However, Laufenberg teaches a similar CIP system comprising a cleaning agent processing apparatus fluidly connected to a cleaning agent tank and being configured to process used cleaning agent whereby processed first or second cleaning agent and dirty water is obtained (col. 3, ll. 1-16). Laufenberg teaches that nanofiltration is preferred (pg. 4, third full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman with a first cleaning agent processing apparatus including nanofiltration in order to recover a useful regenerate solution for a more economical system, as taught by Laufenberg.
Claims 17-20, 22, 25, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bar et al. (US 2021/0077954).
Regarding Claim 17: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Pahlman does not expressly disclose the system further comprises a second cleaning agent processing apparatus fluidly connected to the first cleaning agent apparatus configured to process the cleaning agents in order to separate chemical and water contained in the cleaning agent. However, Bar teaches a cleaning agent processing apparatus fluidly connected to a liquid agent recovery tank and configured to process cleaning agents in order to separate chemicals and water contained in said cleaning agents to concentrate the cleaning agents for reuse [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman with a cleaning agent processing apparatus to separate chemicals and water in order to concentrate the cleaning agent for reuse, as taught by Bar.
Regarding Claim 18: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Bar further teaches the second cleaning agent processing apparatus is further configured to separate insoluble solids from the cleaning agent [0020].
Regarding Claim 19: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Bar further teaches a second solids separation device configured to separate insoluble solids from the recovered agent [0020].
Regarding Claim 20: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Bar further teaches the second cleaning agent processing apparatus comprises a water/chemical separation device configured to separate water and chemical from the used first or second cleaning agent [0020].
Regarding Claim 22: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 19 as discussed above. Bar further teaches the solids separation device is one of strainer or screen [0020].
Regarding Claim 25: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Again, Bar teaches the cleaning agent processing apparatus fluidly connected to a liquid agent recovery tank and configured to process cleaning agents in order to separate chemicals to concentrate the cleaning agents for reuse [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman to be configured to direct the processed cleaning agents into the cleaning agent tank for reuse, as suggested by Bar.
Regarding Claim 35: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Pahlman further teaches a clean water recovery tank (element 8) fully capable of storing separated water.
Claims 21 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) and Bar et al. (US 2021/0077954) as applied to Claim 17, and further in view of Wiley et all. (US 2012/0234353).
Regarding Claims 21 and 24: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the second cleaning agent processing apparatus comprises a sterilization device configured to sterilize the chemicals separated by the water/chemical device separation device. However, Wiley teaches a sterilization device configured to sterilize recycled chemicals used in a CIP process [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman and Bar with a sterilization device fluidly connected to the second cleaning agent processing apparatus to sterilize the recycled chemicals to enhance the cleaning efficiency, as taught by Wiley.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) and Bar et al. (US 2021/0077954) as applied to Claim 20, and further in view of Endres et al. (AU 4634489).
Regarding Claim 23: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 20 as discussed above. Bar is cited for teaching electrodialysis as the water/chemical separation device, but does not expressly disclose the separation device as claimed. However, Endres teaches that reverse osmosis is a known technique for separating water from chemicals prior to reusing the process (pg. 43, claim 11). It has been held It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman and Bar with reverse osmosis membrane for separating the water from chemical before reusing the water, as Endres suggests that reverse osmosis is suitable for this purpose.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Musale et al. (US 2015/0183673).
Regarding Claims 28-30: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 27 as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the structure of the dirty water processing apparatus. However, Musale teaches a similar CIP system comprising a dirty water processing apparatus including a solids separation devices including strainers, screens, and centrifuges configured to separate insoluble solids from the recovered dirty water [0008] and a water/solids separation device configured to separate solids from dirty water [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman with the claimed separation devices in order to purify the water to return to the CIP system for cleaning, as taught by Musale.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of JP 3676728 (machine translation referenced hereafter).
Regarding Claim 34: Pahlman teaches the elements of Claim 27 as discussed above. Pahlman does not expressly disclose the system further comprises a heat treatment tank fluidly connected to the dirty water processing apparatus. However, ‘728 teaches a waste water heat sterilization apparatus to heat treat waste water for sterilization [0001, 0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman with a heat treatment tank to treat the wastewater for sterilization, as taught by ‘728.
Claims 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlman (WO 2006032731) and Bar et al. (US 2021/0077954) as applied to Claim 17, and further in view of Musale et al. (US 2015/0183673).
Regarding Claims 36-41: Pahlman and Bar teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the system comprises a clean water processing apparatus as claimed. However, Pahlman teaches that the recovered water is to be reused. Musale teaches a system comprising a water processing apparatus to process water via disinfection using chlorination or oxidation, for example, before contacting the equipment [0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pahlman with a clean water processing apparatus configured to further process the clean water from the second cleaning agent processing apparatus or from the dirty water processing apparatus in order to provide suitable rinsing fluid as suggested by Musale. As such, it would have also been obvious to configure the system to direct the water obtained from the second cleaning agent processing agent processing apparatus or the dirty water apparatus into the clean water processing apparatus and a process water storing tank connected thereto in order to make the water available for reuse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights