DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “System” in line 1 should be replaced with --A system--.
Claims 2-11: “System” in line 1 should be replaced with --The system--.
Claim 12: “Membrane” in line 1 should be replaced with --A membrane--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, as shown in Fig. 1, in the reply filed on May 6, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the different groups of claims are not listed; and that the species form a general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because, the requirement is based on species and not groups of claims; and the species don’t share the same or corresponding special technical features, as stated in the previous Office Action. Claim 10 is drawn to Species B, and therefore has been withdrawn.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are hereby examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim recites a method implemented by a controller for monitoring a fluid and controlling a process in a membrane filtration plant. Claim 13 recites the following limitations: “determining, based on the received feed data, the characteristic of the feed”; determining, based on the received downstream data, the characteristic of the retentate or the permeate”, “compare the characteristic of the feed with the characteristic of the retentate to determine a retentate difference between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the retentate”, and “compare the retentate difference with a retentate threshold”. The limitations of “determining…feed”, “determining…permeate”, “compare…retentate”, and “compare…threshold” are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user may “determine” a characteristic of the feed, retentate, or permeate by manually reviewing appropriate data. Furthermore, a user may “compare” the characteristic of the feed and retentate by manually reviewing data and mentally determining the retentate difference. Finally, a user may “compare” the retentate difference with a retentate threshold my manually reviewing data. In addition, the instant specification does not indicate that the claimed “controller” is anything more than a generic computer, such that the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “control a process of the membrane filtration plant based on whether the retentate difference has exceeded the retentate threshold” is recited at a high level and is directed to generally linking the “determining” and “compare” judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “receiving feed data” and “receiving downstream data from a downstream sensor” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Claim 13 is not patent eligible.
The system and membrane filtration plant claims of claims 1-9 and 11-12 are no different in substance from the method of claim 13. The method claim recites the abstract ideas and [controlling a process of the membrane filtration plant based on the abstract ideas]. The system and membrane filtration plant claims recite a handful of generic components configured to implement the same idea. Since Applicant’s system and membrane filtration plant claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract ideas, they too are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS bank Int’l, 573 U.S_, 16-17 (2014).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freije, III et al. (US 2011/0315632) [hereinafter Freije].
With respect to claim 1, Freije discloses a system 200 (membrane filtration plant), as shown in Fig. 1, having: a downstream sensor S1-S4 configured for obtaining downstream data regarding a characteristic of a permeate or a retentate of the membrane filtration plant 200, and a controller 114 communicatively connected to the downstream sensor S1-S4. Freije does not disclose the controller configured to receive feed data regarding a characteristic of a feed of the membrane filtration plant, determine, based on the received feed data, the characteristic of the feed, receive downstream data from the downstream sensor, determine, based on the received downstream data, the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate, compare the characteristic of the feed with the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate to determine a downstream difference between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate, compare the downstream difference with a downstream threshold, and control a process of the membrane filtration plant based on whether the downstream difference has exceeded the downstream threshold. However, Freije teaches that the “controller 114 monitors sensors S3 and S4 to determine the appropriate state of valves A and D-F. During a purge/flush process, when the fluid level in purge holding tank 134 is below a first level sensed by sensor S3, controller 114 directs the concentrate fluid 106 to purge holding tank 134 through valve E as opposed to drain 110. When the fluid level in purge holding tank 134 reaches the first level, controller 114 closes valve E and sends the remaining concentrate fluid 106 to drain 110 through valve D. Once the purge cycle is complete and a new run cycle is to begin, controller 114 closes valve A and opens valve F so that the initial fluid to be injected during the subsequent run cycle is provided by purge holding tank 134. This is continued until the fluid level in purge holding tank 134 reaches a second level, sensed by sensor S4. At that point, valve F is closed and valve A is opened resulting in fluid from feed supply 102 being injected into membrane system 100. In one embodiment, the purge/re-use tank 134 uses a high float and a timer. By storing at least a portion of the purge fluid for subsequent injection, the amount of fluid used is decreased. In one embodiment, permeate stored in a reservoir, such as tank 130, is used as the feed during the purge/flush cycle” (see paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to programmed the controller disclosed by Freije, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller can be programmed according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 2, Freije discloses wherein the system further comprises a feed sensor S1-S4 configured for obtaining feed data regarding a characteristic of a feed of the membrane filtration plant, wherein the feed sensor is communicatively connected to the controller 114, and the controller 114 is further configured to: receive feed data from the feed sensor S1-S4, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 3, Freije discloses wherein the process is a flush (see paragraph 0038).
With respect to claim 4, Freije discloses wherein the controller 114 is further configured to: stop the flush when the downstream difference has exceeded the downstream threshold (see paragraph 0038).
With respect to claims 5-6, Freije lacks these limitations regarding configuration of the controller controlling the timing of the flush. However, Freije teaches that a timer may be used (see paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller disclosed by Freije to run/stop the flush at certain times, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to program the controller according to a desired application and since Freije already teaches the use of a timer (see paragraph 0038).
With respect to claim 7, Freije discloses wherein the downstream sensor S3-S4 is a retentate sensor configured for obtaining downstream data regarding a characteristic of the retentate of the membrane filtration plant 200, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 8, Freije discloses wherein the membrane filtration plant 200 comprises one or more loops each comprising a membrane 100 for filtering the feed and a pump 120 for circulating feed in the associated loop, wherein the system further comprises: one or more permeate sensors S1-S2 communicatively connected to the controller 114 and configured for obtaining permeate data regarding a characteristic of a permeate through the one or more membranes 120. However, Freije lacks wherein the controller is further configured to: receive permeate data from the one or more permeate sensors, determine, based on the received permeate data, the one or more characteristics of the permeate through the one or more membranes, compare the characteristic of the feed with the one or more characteristics of the permeate to determine one or more permeate differences between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the retentate, compare the one or more permeate differences with a permeate threshold, and control the process of the membrane filtration plant based on whether the one or more permeate differences has exceeded the permeate threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to programmed the controller disclosed by Freije, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller can be programmed according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 9, Freije discloses wherein the membrane filtration plant 200 comprises a first loop comprising a first membrane 100 for filtering the feed and a first pump 120 for circulating feed in the first loop, wherein the system further comprises: a first permeate sensor S1-S2 communicatively connected to the controller 114, as shown in Fig. 1. Freije lacks the controller configured for obtaining permeate data regarding a characteristic of a permeate through the first membrane, and wherein the controller is further configured to: A. control the first pump to flush the first loop, B. receive permeate data from the first permeate sensor, C. determine, based on the received permeate data, the characteristic of the permeate through the first membrane, D. compare the characteristic of the feed with the characteristic of the permeate through the first membrane to determine a first permeate differences between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the permeate through the first membrane, E. compare the first permeate differences with the permeate threshold, and F. control the first pump to stop flushing the first loop based on whether the first permeate differences has exceeded the permeate threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to programmed the controller disclosed by Freije, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller can be programmed according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 11, Freije discloses wherein the downstream sensor is a conductivity sensor, a turbidity sensor, or a specific gravity sensor (see paragraph 0071).
With respect to claim 12, Freije discloses a system 200 (membrane filtration plant), as shown in Fig. 1, having: a permeate line, as shown in Fig. 1, a concentrate line (retentate line), as shown in Fig. 1, a feed supply 102 (feed line) fluidly connected to the permeate line and the retentate line, as shown in Fig. 1, a downstream sensor S1-S4 configured for obtaining retentate data regarding a characteristic of a retentate or a permeate of the membrane filtration plant 200, as shown in Fig. 1, and a controller 114 communicatively connected to the downstream sensor S1-S4, as shown in Fig. 1. Freije lacks the controller configured to: receive feed data regarding a characteristic of a feed of the membrane filtration plant, determine, based on the received feed data, the characteristic of the feed, receive downstream data from the downstream sensor, determine, based on the received downstream data, the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate, compare the characteristic of the feed with the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate to determine a downstream difference between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the permeate or the retentate, compare the downstream difference with a downstream threshold, and control a process of the membrane filtration plant based on whether the downstream difference has exceeded the downstream threshold However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to programmed the controller disclosed by Freije, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller can be programmed according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 13, Freije discloses a system 200 (membrane filtration plant), as shown in Fig. 1, teaches the method steps of: receiving downstream data from a downstream sensor S1-S4, the downstream data being regarding a characteristic of a retentate or a permeate of the membrane filtration plant, determining, based on the received downstream data, the characteristic of the retentate or the permeate, compare the characteristic of the feed with the characteristic of the retentate to determine a retentate difference between the characteristic of the feed and the characteristic of the retentate, compare the retentate difference with a retentate threshold, and control a process of the membrane filtration plant based on whether the retentate difference has exceeded the retentate threshold (see paragraph 0038). Freije lacks receiving feed data, the feed data being regarding a characteristic of a feed of the membrane filtration plant, determining, based on the received feed data, the characteristic of the feed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to programmed the controller disclosed by Freije, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller can be programmed according to a desired application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights