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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 12/27/2021
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 6 recites “the at least two types of the water have a same solute and is changed in pH or temperature. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “are different in pH or temperature” to have consistency with subject-verb agreement.
(ii) Claim 16 recites “a concentration index automatically based on a detection value”. The phrase is incomplete. It is respectfully suggested to amend to clarify or amend the limitation to “a concentration index automatically calculated based on a detection value” if supported by the original disclosure.
(iii) Claim 17 recites “is compared and automatically make determination”. It is respectfully suggested to amend to clarify or amend the limitation to “is compared and automatically made” for clarity.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “the calculation unit” in line 1 is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “The calculation unit for state diagnosis of the separation membrane module according to claim 15 and a computer-readable recording medium recording the calculation unit” is indefinite because it is not clear. The phrase does not clearly establish whether the claimed subject matter is the calculation unit, the recording medium, or a combination of both. The boundaries of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. See MPEP 2173. 02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 fails to add a further limitation to the subject matter of claim 15.
Claim 18 recites “The calculation unit for state diagnosis of the separation membrane module according to claim 15 and a computer-readable recording medium recording the calculation unit”.
However, claim 18 changes the claimed subject matter from the state diagnosis device of claim 15 to a calculation unit and a computer-readable recording medium, rather than reciting the state diagnosis device of claim 15 and specifying a further limitation thereof. Further, claim 15 does not recite a calculation unit for claim 18 to further limit.
Consequently, it is the examiner's position that claim 18 fails to incorporate all limitations of claim 15 and fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 15 as required by 35 USC 112(d). MPEP 608.01(n) provides that a dependent claim must incorporate all limitations of the referenced claim and specify a further limitation thereof. This is considered for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel claim 18, amend claim 18 to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite claim 18 on independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons et al., (US 2008/0105038 A1, hereinafter as “Jons”) in view of Pinnau et al., (US 2005/0077243 A1, hereinafter as “Pinnau”).
Regarding claim 1, Jons teaches a method for assessing the integrity of a separation module or filtration system (Abstract). Jons discloses an integrity testing of a reverse osmosis/nanofiltration filtration module/system producing a permeate from feed water (Abstract; ¶¶ [0001-0003, 0018]), the state diagnosis method comprising:
supplying test/challenge water containing a challenge species to the membrane feed (¶ [0019]) (supplying a test water containing at least one type of solute to a separation membrane module, or individually supplying at least two types of a test water containing at least one type of solute to the separation membrane module)
detecting the time-dependent concentration of challenge species in permeate and comparing the permeate signal to a reference (¶¶ [0019, 0040-0041]) (comparing a separation performance based on a concentration of the solute contained in the permeate water), determining whether a leak/defect exists and determining its position and, in some cases, cause from the permeate-response profile (¶¶ [0020,0039-0041]) (to determine any of a type of an abnormality, a degree of an abnormality, and a generation position of an abnormality of the separation membrane module).
But Jons does not explicitly the claimed “at least two types of solutes.”
However, Pinnau teaches membrane-performance testing using different aqueous solutes including NaCl, CuSO4, dichloromethane, toluene, ethanol, acetic acid, with measured flux and rejection for each test solution (Table 3 lists the different aqueous solutes; ¶¶ [0177-0183]).
Jons and Pinnau are analogous arts because both concern aqueous reverse osmosis/separation membranes and are reasonably pertinent to evaluating membrane separation performance from solute passage/rejection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least two different challenge solutes taught by Pinnau in Jons’ membrane-integrity test because the different solutes produce independently measurable membrane rejection responses, thereby providing additional discriminatory separation-performance information for characterizing membrane condition (Pinnau: Tables 3-5 shows the different solutes and their respective rejection responses (%); ¶¶ [0177-0183]).
In regard to claim 2, Pinnau discloses ionic substances having different valences including NaCl (MW=58.44 g/mol, monovalent) and CuSO4 (MW=159.60 g/mol, divalent) and numerous organic solutes having expressly tabulated different molecular weights (MW) (Pinnau: Tables 3-5 shows the different solutes and their respective rejection responses (%); ¶¶ [0177-0183]).
In regard to claim 4, the Jons-Pinnau combination applied to claim 2 discussions above teaches use of ionic solutes having different valence. Pinnau expressly tests NaCl comprising Na+ (a substance comprising a monovalent cation) and CuSO4 comprising Cu2+ (a substance comprising a divalent cation) (Tables 3-5 shows the different solutes and their respective rejection responses (%); ¶¶ [0177-0183]).
In regard to claim 5, the Jons-Pinnau combination applied to claim 2 discussions above teaches use of ionic solutes having different valence. Pinnau expressly tests NaCl comprising Cl- (a substance comprising a monovalent anion) and CuSO4 comprising SO42- (a substance comprising a divalent anion) (Tables 3-5 shows the different solutes and their respective rejection responses (%); ¶¶ [0177-0183]).
In regard to claim 6, Pinnau teaches 500-ppm toluene aqueous solution tested at 24oC, 34oC, and 44oC, with corresponding change in flux/rejection (¶¶ [0184-0186]). Pinnau further teaches 1500-ppm NaCl solution tested at pH 8 and after adjustment to pH 3, with flux and NaCl rejection measured (¶¶ [0190-0192]).
In regard to claim 7, the combination of Jons, in view of Pinnau and McCutcheon, as discussed in claim 3 above, teaches use of concentration indices. Jons further teaches detection of the concentration index of the permeate water using conductivity, TOC, turbidity, particles, light absorbance or fluorescence (¶ [0054]).
In regard to claim 8, Jons teaches measuring challenge species concentration at several positions along the permeate tube; simultaneously measuring at least four points within the vessel’s permeate collection region (¶¶ [0020, 0058-0059]) (the permeate water is taken in from at least two positions of a module), position dependent permeates concentration/conductivity signal recorded and compared to identify membrane defects (¶¶ [0020, 0040-0041]) (the separation performances are compared).
In regard to claim 9, Jons disclosed a method of taking in the permeate water from the at least two positions as discussed in claim 8 above. Jons further discloses the probing conduit/tube inserted through connected permeate tubes into the vessels permeate collection region (¶¶ [0057-0060]) (passing a thin tube to the separation membrane module), probing/sampling from selected axial permeate regions and measure conductivity/perform challenge-species concentration measurements (¶¶ [0057-0060]) (collecting the permeate water at different positions of the separation membrane module to measure a water quality).
In regard to claim 10, Jons teaches a spiral-wound hyperfiltration module/vessel (¶¶ [0002-0003]). Jons further discloses probing conduit received within the connected permeate collection, where the probe may be slid to vary its axial position within the permeate collection region (¶¶ [0059-0060]) (inserting the tube into a central pipe for permeate water collection and moving the tube).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of McCutcheon (US 2013/0105395 A1, hereinafter as, “McCutcheon”).
In regard to claim 3, the Jons-Pinnau combination teaches comparing separation performance from measured permeate-solute concentration as discussed in claim 1 but does not disclose the separation performance based on a concentration index of the permeate water, a concentration converted from the concentration index, a standard separation performance converted based on an operation condition, and a solute permeability coefficient calculated based on an operation data.
However, McCutcheon teaches quantitative membrane-performance characterization (¶¶ [0135-0139])). McCutcheon discloses conductivity (concentration index of the permeate water), Cp and Cf interpolated from a conductivity-concentration curve for NaCl solutions (a concentration converted from the concentration index), observed solute rejection Rs = 1- Cp / Cf and water flux Jw (a standard separation performance converted based on an operation condition), solute permeability coefficient (B = Jw (1- Rs)/ Rs) (solute permeability coefficient) (Table 3 shows membrane separation performance, including coefficients and formulas used; ¶¶ [0135-0139]).
Jons, Pinnau, and McCutcheon are analogous arts because each concern aqueous membrane separation quantitative characterization of solute transport through membranes.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate Jons modified separation response using McCutcheon’s established transport parameter because normalization into concentration, rejection, and solute-permeability coefficient permits membrane performance to be quantitatively compared to independently of raw detector signal and operating flux, thereby improving diagnostic capability (McCutcheon: ¶ [0139]).
Claims 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Hamada et al., (US 2021/0370235 A1, hereinafter as “Hamada”).
Regarding claim 11, the Jons-Pinnau combination, as discussed in claim 8 above, teaches taking permeate from at least two positions but does not clearly disclose changing the permeate flow-rate ratio.
However, Hamada teaches a separation-membrane-module inspection method having multiple permeate outlets (Abstract). Hamada discloses a separation membrane module having a plurality of permeate outlets (¶¶ [0040-0041) (a structure that allows the permeate water to be taken in from at least two positions), varying the ratio between the flow rates of the respective permeates discharged from the plural permeate outlets and measuring the respective water qualities (¶¶ 0041-0042, 0047-0052]) (a flow rate ratio of the permeate water is changed).
Jons, Pinnau and Hamada are analogous arts because all concern aqueous separation-membrane performance and are reasonably pertinent to diagnosing membrane condition from measured separation behavior.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Jons’ positional diagnostic system with Hamada’s controllable permeate-flow ratios because varying the relative contribution of different permeate regions generates a diagnostic water-quality profile capable of identifying the position and degree of membrane abnormality (Hamada: ¶¶ [0047-0056]).
In regard to claim 12, Jons, in view of Pinnau, teaches comparing measured performance with a reference obtained from an earlier test of the same system, equivalent intact systems or a computer-generated defect-free response (Jons: ¶¶ [0040-0041]) (wherein the separation performance for the test water in a state before use of the separation membrane module is measured or predicted in advance). Hamada further discloses forming a normal/reference water-quality profile and comparing later module behavior to diagnose an abnormality (¶ [0070]) (a state of the separation membrane module is determined based on a deviation from a value thereof).
In regard to claim 13, Jons, in view of Pinnau, combination as discussed in claim 12 above, teaches preparing and comparing reference performance profiles but does not disclose both the claimed chemical deterioration and induced chemical reference profiles. Pinnau teaches controlled chemical exposure of reverse osmosis membranes and measurement of resulting membrane performance, including a controlled NaOCl, acidic, and alkaline (NaOH) exposure followed by measured flux/rejection before, during, and after chemical exposure (Tables 6-8 shows measurement of resulting membrane performance; ¶¶ [0187-0195]); Hamada further teaches quantitative comparison of membrane water-quality profiles before and after chemical cleaning, chemical-condition changes, or membrane replacement (¶ [0075]) (a chemical deterioration profile in which the separation performance deteriorates by bringing the separation membrane module into contact with a chemical). Jons teaches intentional physical defect generated using a pin in a membrane leaf, followed by repeat testing showing a large change in permeate conductivity (¶¶ [0007, 0075-0076]) (a physical deterioration profile in which the separation performance decreases by causing a physical scratch on a supply side). It would have been further obvious to prepare both known chemical-and physical damage reference responses and compare the measured membrane response against them because defect-dependent response profiles and separation changes caused by controlled chemical exposure, enable attribution of an observed loss of separation performance to known damage mechanisms (Jons: ¶¶ (0075-0076); Pinnau: ¶¶ [0187-0195]; Hamada: ¶ [0075]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of evidentiary reference Tanaguchi et al., (Boron reduction performance of reverse osmosis seawater desalination process, Journal of Membrane Science, 2001, 183, pp. 259-267, hereinafter as, “Tanaguchi”).
In regard to claim 14, Jons, in view of Pinnau, in combination as discussed in claim 1, teaches comparing membrane rejection/performance for different solutes and using relative changes in permeate response to identify physical membrane defects; Pinnau demonstrates differing rejection behavior among different solutes (¶¶ [0177-0183]), while Jons demonstrates that a physical defect dramatically changes challenge-species passage (¶ [0040]).
But Jons in view of Pinnau, does not disclose the relative ratio between a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a higher separation performance is twice or more as large as a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a lower separation performance.
With respect to the relative ratio between a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a higher separation performance is twice or more as large as a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a lower separation performance, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Jons in view of Pinnau, does not expressly disclose the claimed relative ratio between a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a higher separation performance is twice or more as large as a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a lower separation performance; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the relative ratio between a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a higher separation performance is twice or more as large as a separation performance decrease rate of the solute having a lower separation performance as claimed since different solutes exhibit different permeability responses upon reverse osmosis-membrane degradation, thereby establishing the relative change between solute performance to provide an objective boundary for distinguishing abnormal membrane behavior and improve abnormality detection accuracy as evidenced by Taniguchi (Abstract). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, and further in view of Hamada.
Regarding claim 15, Jons teaches an apparatus/system for evaluation the integrity of a separation membrane module by detecting challenge-species concentration in permeate, recording the detected response with a reference (0018-0020. Jons discloses an apparatus/system for evaluating integrity of a spiral-wound separation membrane module/system (¶¶ [0001, 0018]) (a state diagnosis device for a separation membrane module), the state diagnostic device comprising:
detecting and recording challenge-species concentration in permeate as a function of time, preferably at intervals <10s and more preferable <2s (¶ [0040]) (periodically detect a concentration of each of the solutes contained in permeate water);
computer processing the digitally recorded permeate concentration response and evaluating it by comparison with a reference (¶¶ [0040-0041]) (a separation performance comparing unit configured to compare separation performances based thereon);
But Jons does not disclose: (I) a test water containing at least two types of solutes; and (II) at least two types of detectors and an abnormality determining unit configured to automatically determine any of a type of an abnormality, a degree of an abnormality, and a generation position of an abnormality.
Regarding (I), Pinnau teaches testing membrane separation using multiple different solutes and determining their concentration using different analytical detector techniques, including conductivity for salts and TOC/chromatographic analysis for organic solutes (¶ [0178]).
Regarding (II), Hamada teaches a water treatment device comprising, first water-quality analyzer (12, Fig. 1) and second water quality analyzer (16, Fig. 1) measuring respective permeates (¶¶ [0041-0043]) (at least two types of detectors), and a detection means configured to detect presence/absence, degree, or location of membrane abnormality from changes in permeate flow and measured permeate water quality (¶¶ [0047-0056, 0068-0070]) (an abnormality determining unit configured to automatically determine any of a type of an abnormality, a degree of an abnormality, and a generation position of an abnormality)
Jons, Pinnau and Hamada are analogous arts because all concern aqueous separation-membrane performance and are reasonably pertinent to diagnosing membrane condition from measured separation behavior.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jons’ computerized membrane-integrity apparatus to use in Pinnau’s multiple discriminating solutes because the different solutes produce independently measurable membrane rejection responses, thereby providing additional discriminatory separation-performance information for characterizing membrane condition (Pinnau: Tables 3-5 shows the different solutes and their respective rejection responses (%); ¶¶ [0177-0183]); it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Jons’ computerized membrane-integrity apparatus with Hamada’s plural water quality analyzers/detection means because varying the relative contribution of different permeate regions generates a diagnostic water-quality profile capable of identifying the presence/absence, position and degree of membrane abnormality, thereby helps improve membrane maintenance efficiency (Hamada: ¶¶ [0050-0056, 0070]).
In regard to claim 17, the combination of Jons, Pinnau and Hamada, as discussed in claim 15 above, teaches the complete state diagnosis device of claim 15, including multiple-solute testing, permeate detection computerized comparison and abnormality detection. Jons further discloses introducing a short/transient pulse of a well-rejected challenge species into the membrane feed by switching feed solutions or injecting concentrated challenge solution (¶ [0019]) ( adding the two types of solutes to water-to-be-treated in a pulsed manner), and measuring the resulting time-dependent challenge-species concentration/conductivity in permeate (¶¶ [0019,0040]) (measuring a change in permeate water), and digitally recording the time-dependent permeate response so that a computer process and evaluates the response by comparison with a reference (¶¶ [0040-0041]) (is compared and automatically make determination).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, and Hamada, as applied to claim 15, and further in view of McCutcheon.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jons, Pinnau and Hamada, as discussed in claim 15 above, teaches the complete state diagnosis device of claim 15, including permeate-water quality detectors, comparison of measured membrane response, and determination of membrane abnormality (a calculation unit configured to automatically calculate a degree of performance decrease of the separation membrane module). Hamada teaches the online-determination consisting of electrical-conductivity, salt/boron, UV-absorbance and turbidity measurements (¶ [0043]) and Jons additionally teaches conductivity, TOC, turbidity, absorbance and fluorescence detection (¶ [0054]) (the detector is an online detector in which any of an electrical conductivity, a UV absorption, TOC, a refractive index, a turbidity, an absorbance, a fluorescence intensity, a chromaticity, and pH is detected). Jons further teaches a characteristic physical defect- response profiles, including scratches/pinholes, and experimentally induced physical defects (¶ [0007, 0054]) (contribution rate of a physical deterioration), while Pinnau teaches controlled chemical exposure of reverse osmosis membranes and measurement of resulting membrane performance, including a controlled NaOCl, acidic, and alkaline exposure followed by measured flux/rejection before, during, and after chemical exposure (Tables 6-8 shows measurement of resulting membrane performance; ¶¶ [0187-0195]) and Hamada further teaches quantitatively comparing water quality profiles automatically using differences in maximum, integral or differential values and quantitatively evaluating before and after chemical treatment (¶ [0043]) (a contribution rate of a chemical deterioration based on any of a concentration index automatically based on a detection value), where the chemical degradation affects different solute permeabilities to different degrees as evidenced by Taniguchi (Abstract).
But Jons, in view of Pinnau and Hamada, does not disclose a concentration converted from the concentration index, a standard separation performance converted based on an operation condition, and a solute permeability coefficient calculated based on an operation data.
However, McCutcheon teaches quantitative membrane-performance characterization (¶¶ [0135-0139]). McCutcheon discloses conductivity (concentration index of the permeate water), Cp and Cf interpolated from a conductivity-concentration curve for NaCl solutions (a concentration converted from the concentration index), observed solute rejection Rs = 1- Cp / Cf and water flux Jw (a standard separation performance converted based on an operation condition), solute permeability coefficient (B = Jw (1- Rs)/ Rs) (a solute permeability coefficient calculated based on an operation data) (Table 3 shows membrane separation performance, including coefficients and formulas used; ¶¶ [0135-0139])
Jons, Pinnau, Hamada, and McCutcheon are analogous arts because each concern aqueous membrane separation and the measurement, comparison, or quantitative calculation of membrane separation performance.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the modified Jons state diagnosis device to calculate the relative contributions of physical and chemical deterioration from the known quantitative membrane-performance characterization taught by McCutcheon because such implementation predictably provides objective quantitative attribution of membrane performance loss to different deterioration mechanisms (McCutcheon: (¶¶ [0135-0139]) and in improving abnormality-detection accuracy (Hamada: ¶¶ 0070-0071).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jons in view of Pinnau, and Hamada, as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Karabelas (US 2014/0319029 A1, hereinafter as “Karabelas”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jons, Pinnau and Hamada, as discussed in claim 15 above, teaches the membrane-state diagnosis system and its detection, comparison/abnormality functions but does not clearly disclose the calculation unit for state diagnosis of the separation membrane module and a computer-readable recording medium recording the calculation unit.
However, Karabelas teaches a computer/processor receiving processed permeate-property signals, correlating them with a specific membrane element, comparing the signal against a predetermined membrane-performance threshold, and determining membrane condition/replacement need (¶¶ [0012,0049-0051]) (the calculation unit for state diagnosis of the separation membrane module), and a computer program associated with the computer and stored on a tangible computer memory media, containing instructions executed by the computer to perform the membrane performance determination (¶¶ [0012-0013, 0050-0052]) (a computer-readable recording medium recording the calculation unit).
Jons, Pinnau, Hamada and Karabelas are analogous arts because each concerns monitoring or evaluation aqueous reverse osmosis/separation membrane performance.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the membrane-diagnosis functions taught by the modified Jons’ combination in claim 15 using Karabela’s processor and stored executable program because the implementation of such processor and program to membrane-element permeate monitoring enables automatic processing, threshold comparison, localization of the affected membrane affected and maintenance/replacement determination (Karabelas: ¶¶ [0049-0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights