DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “A method for determining a sample filter clogging condition value of an immersion filter probe of a process water analyzer arrangement” (the inventive concept) the method comprising “memorizing the filtration motor rotations value generated by the motor speed control for pumping the defined filtration volume, driving the sample pump for pumping a defined non-filtration volume detected by the water flow sensor unit, wherein the non-filtration volume is smaller than the membrane distal bulging volume, memorizing the motor rotations value generated by the motor speed control for pumping the defined non-filtration volume, and determining the sample filter clogging condition value based on the filtration motor rotations value and the non-filtration motor rotations value.”
The limitations of “memorizing…” and “determining” are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the pump and filter are generic machines and do not constitute integration into a practical application as the method is ultimately directed to gathering data and making a mental evaluation. The pump and filter do not meaningfully limit the method.
The claims can also be considered mere data gathering. A user may memorize the data collected and then make a mental determination of what that data means or indicates. The “memorizing…” is also considered data gathering that is then analyzed by the abstract mental process of determining”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The extra-solution activity are the limitations to the generic pump and filter.
It is further noted that indicating the field of use does not move the abstract idea beyond a judicial exception.
Claim 24 recites “a hydrostatic height memory for memorizing” and then “determining the sample filter clogging condition value includes the hydrostatic pump height”. These are also considered abstract limitations that amount to nothing more than mental processes and data gathering and comparison.
Claim 26 recites that the “arrangement determines a pump hose condition”. This is another abstract limitation of a metal step of mathematical relationships and comparison. The device itself is nothing more than a generic device and does not contribute to the inventive concept.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the pump/filter do not contribute an inventive concept that would, in combination with the abstract idea, move beyond the judicial exception.
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 14-26 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.
Claim 14:
“the water sample analyzer” lacks antecedent basis in the claim
It is unclear how and if the “water sample analyzer” is different from the “a bidirectional water flow sensor unit”, no indication is clear from the claim.
Further, it is unclear what the structure of these limitations is, i.e. what they comprise
What is “being detected by the water flow sensor unit”?
“the filtration motor rotations value” lacks antecedent basis in the claim
“the motor rotations value generated by the motor speed control” lacks antecedent basis in the claim
It is unclear what “determining” requires and the step is. It is also unclear what “based on” means with respect to the “determining”
It is unclear what a “sample filter clogging condition value” is and how it is defined
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites “wherein a hydrostatic height memory for memorizing the hydrostatic pump heigh value..” but then never recites anything about the hydrostatic height memory. It is unclear what this part of the claim is trying to recite.
It is unclear what is meant by the “determining” “includes the hydrostatic pump height” and how this is accomplished.
Claim 25:
“condition value is better” is indefinite as “better” is a relative term wherein there is no explanation of indication of how “better” would be defined.
Claim 26:
“determines” is indefinite as it is unclear what is required of this limitation and how this is accomplished.
It is unclear what a “pump hose condition value” is
It is unclear what “on the basis…” requires
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 14-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0200607).
Claims 14-17 and 24-26, Gilron et al. teach a submerged membrane unit comprising a membrane (28) which is immersed in a tank (20). The device includes a peristaltic pump [0026] that pumps fluid. The pumps are motor driven [0026]. The device is “bidirectional” as the device allows for backwashing [0045]. The membranes are sheets (52) [0045] which are held by a support system (Fig. 2). The membranes are sheets which allow for bulging as they are not completely fixed [0045]. Gilron et al. include rotameters (44) which detect permeate flow rate is reduced, which may indicate that membrane filter unit 28 is clogged [0027]. There is also a frequency controller 50 (i.e. motor speed control) may regulate a permeate feed rate by controlling permeate feed pump 42 based on signals from rotameters 44. Together, these make up the “water sample analyzer”. There is a permeate storage tank (38) (i.e. vertical measuring container Claim 19).
The determining and comparison limitations of claims 14-17 and 24-26 are considered abstract steps that can be performed by mind and hand. They constitute gathering data and making mental determinations of what that data means. These limitations are not patentably limiting to the claims.
Claims 18-19: Giron et al. do not teach water sensors. However, water sensors are generic in the art and are well-known to be placed for determining water levels and movement in filtration systems. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to provide multiple sensors including at least two in Giron et al.’s permeate tank for the benefit of monitoring the water level in the tank and two sensors in the line of the filtration device for monitoring water flow and ensuring that there is not a blockage or damage in the system.
Claim 20: the non-filtration value is considered the backwashing about of fluid. While Giron et al. do not specify the backwashing amount of fluid used, it is known that the amount of fluid required for backwashing the membrane is a result effective variable that is selected at the discretion of the user dependent on the system size and membrane requirements. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 21: the membrane is supported by the pipes and structure in Figure 2 and does not appear to have a distal support.
Claim 22: while Giron et al. teach a pressure transducer may be provided [0027], they also indicate it is not critical and envisage not providing one.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0200607) in view of Smith-Haddon et al. (USP 6197192).
Claim 23: Gilron et al. teach the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. They do not teach that the motor is specifically a step (or stepper) motor.
Smith-Haddon et al. teach a water treatment device comprising a stepper motor wherein the stepper motor is beneficial because it has low energy requirements (col. 1, lines 45-55).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use specifically a stepper motor given that Gilron et al. do not specify any type of motor and Smith-Haddon et al. teach that stepper motors have low energy requirements.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stepper Motors Basics: Types, Uses, and Working Principles by Carmine Fiore at MPS (2023) This PDF discusses the principles of stepper motors and their applications.
Chevallet et al. (USP 5702597) teach a method and device for detecting and monitoring clogging of a filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights