DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 § 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 1-10 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. The inventive concepts of independent Claims 1 and 6 both rely on conditional limitations (called “evaluation conditions” in the claims) regarding solutions 1 and 2, wherein certain results will occur if solutions 1 and 2 are at certain pHs and sodium chloride concentrations (see Lines 11-20 of Claim 1 and Claim 6, “when a solution…”). These limitations render the claims indefinite because the claims are unclear whether these limitations are necessary to read on the claim or not. If the pH and concentration are required, then the limitation contradicts the earlier requirement that the raw liquid only requires an amount of 1000 mg/L or more of an electrolyte (which one is required of the two?). If the pH and concentration are NOT required, then the claim is indefinite for what results should be expected at different conditions of the solutions to read on the claim.
The claims also require that the solution treatment must satisfy one of two requirements (i) and (ii), yet the claim is unclear whether these requirements are only valid if the solutions 1 and 2 are at these recited evaluation conditions.
Furthermore, the claims are unclear on how the solutions 1 and 2 relate to the solution treatment method, whether these solutions should be considered the raw liquid, permeate liquid or discharge liquid. The claims are considered indefinite at this time. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume that the conditional language/evaluation conditions are required to read on the claims.
While prior art rejections will not be applied at this time due to the assumptions detailed above, the applicant is advised grounds of rejection over prior art may be applied if the applicant amends the claims in a manner that broaden the inventive scope of the claims, in particular if such amendments affect the evaluation conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Menzo Bueno et al. (US Pat Pub. 2017/0189599) recites regeneration conditions for dialysis fluid using a membrane, urea and sodium chloride (Abstract; Table 3); however, the evaluation conditions of the instant claim are not disclose nor or the other features of the claimed methods. Subbiah et al. (US 9248406) recites a membrane performance management system that could be used to adjust values and perimeters to that of the evaluation conditions of the instant claims (Abstract), yet the reference does not read on any other limitations of the instant claims. Nier et al. (US Pat Pub. 2013/0263650) relates to a method for determination of composition of medical liquids regarding electrolytes and non-electrolytes, which could be used to monitor and control solution levels of electrolytes and non-electrolytes (Abstract; Figures 1-2 and 7 along with related passages), yet (similar to Menzo Bueno above), the reference does not arrive at the evaluation conditions of the instant claims or make them obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 07/31/2026
Prosecution Insights