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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered into this application. Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are cancelled.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagao et al. (2018/0201527 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Nagao discloses a flocculation treatment method is included in a flocculation monitoring apparatus (figs. 1-15) and a flocculation monitoring method, for adding a flocculant into a liquid containing particles and flocculating the particles, the flocculation treatment method comprising:
irradiating laser light included in (laser-light applying part 10) into a liquid containing particles and
receiving, by a detection circuit detection circuit 40, scattered light that results from the laser light being scattered by the particles [par. 0054];
an arithmetic circuit 48 determining a flocculation state of the particles based on a change index (indicator) that represents a change in light reception intensity by a scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4 of the scattered light [pars. 0055, 0170], wherein the change index is a statistical quantity using respective integral values of the light reception intensity obtained when a floc formation state measurement time domain is taken n times [pars. 0149-150, 0157]; and
control part 74 selects controlling a flocculant addition device dosing part 76 to adjust (i.e. increasing a dosing amount [par. 0142]) an addition/injection/injected amount or an addition rate of a flocculant added to the liquid based on the determined flocculation state [pars. 0142, 0157-158, 0170].
For the purposes of clarity, index – indicator, or list used to measure, locate, or reference information or measure change, or indicate a value. In addition, a dosing device is designed to inject/add precise, measured volumes of a chemical or substance into a fluid stream or tank.
As to claim 3, Nagao also discloses the scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4/the arithmetic circuit 48 determining the flocculation state to be good in a case where the change index is equal to or greater than a first threshold and is equal to or less than a second threshold, which is a value greater than the first threshold (i.e. TL1) [pars. 0114-115, 138, 0142-146].
As to claim 4, Nagao also discloses the scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4/the arithmetic circuit 48 determining the flocculation state of the particles based on a relationship between a particle diameter of the particles and a change range of the light reception intensity/amplitude, in addition to the change index [pars. 0062-64, 0068, 0074, 0078, 0087-0092].
As to claim 5, Nagao also discloses the scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4/the arithmetic circuit 48 obtaining in advance a relationship between the change index and a particle diameter, and performing determination based on the change index in a particle diameter range decided based on the relationship [pars. 0082-83 0088-89, 0091-92 and 0118].
As to claim 8, Nagao also discloses a method that is implemented using limitations such as, increasing the addition amount of the flocculant in a case where the change index is less than a first threshold, and decreasing the addition amount of the flocculant in a case where the change index exceeds a second threshold, which is a value greater than the first threshold (see abstract) [pars. 0011, 0115, 0136-147] [pars. 0062-75, 0114-115, 138-139, 0142-146] (claim 8).
As to claim 9, Nagao also discloses stopping/starting decreasing the addition amount of the flocculant when the change index reaches a third threshold, which is a value greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold, after exceeding the second threshold (i.e. TL2) [pars. 0055, 0062-75, 0114-115, 138-139, 0142-146] (fig. 15)
As to claim 10, Nagao also discloses a method that is implemented using limitations such as, determining the flocculation state to be good/appropriate in a case where the change index is equal to or greater than a first threshold and is equal to or less than a second threshold, which is a value greater than the first threshold (TL1) [pars. 0055, 0125, 0127, 0143-144].
As to claim 11, Nagao also discloses a method that is implemented using limitations such as, determining the flocculation state of the particles based on a relationship between a particle diameter of the particles and a change range of the light reception intensity/amplitude, in addition to the change index [pars. 0063-64].
As to claim 12, Nagao also discloses by the scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4/the arithmetic circuit 48 obtaining in advance a relationship between the change index and a particle diameter, and performing determination based on the change index in a particle diameter range decided based on the relationship [pars. 0082-83 0088-89, 0091-92 and 0118].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 6-13), filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues in particular staring on page 10 to page 13 that Applicant submits that Nagao does not disclose, expressly or inherently, each and every one of these limitations, and in particular does not disclose the newly added limitation that "the change index is a statistical quantity using respective integral values of the light reception intensity obtained when a floc formation state measurement time domain is taken n times.".
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the feature " the newly added limitation that" as recited in independent claims 1 is anticipated by Nagao. Nagao clearly discloses in various paragraphs such as in [pars. 0055, 0170] and shows in (figs. 9 and 12) change indicating (index), changes based on statistical quantity (facts and figures collected from a group or a study data/value) using …… values of light reception intensity obtained ….. floc formation state measurement time domain is taken n times (interval) [pars. 0011] and based on interval the data aggregating time was ten seconds and the data collection time was four hours [par.0094]. (figs. 9 and 12) [pars. 0112-113] [0117, 0152] and thus anticipates taken n time, as can be seen depicted in drawing (figs. 5, 9-13 and 15). For the purposes of clarity, the change index corresponds change indicating/indicator, statistical quantity corresponds to (facts and figures collected from a group or a study data/value) (i.e. fig. 5), and domain is taken n times corresponds to interval, as such, Nagao clearly expressly or inherently, discloses each and every one of newly added limitations of claim 1, and it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, Applicant is reminded that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977).
In view of this, then contrary to Applicant’s arguments to the contrary the Examiner’s need not necessarily point to specific sections of the prior art when supporting a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it has been held that during examination See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); and further, during examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, Nagao teaches statistical value, statistical value, that is the value/science of collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting data to turn numbers into useful information in arithmetic, therefore, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, Nagao discloses arithmetic circuit 48 that performs statistical values determination of a flocculation state of the particles based on a change index (indicator) that represents a change in light reception intensity by a scattered-light receiving part (12)/a sensor part 4 of the scattered light [pars. 0055, 0170], as such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument (a) is not persuasive.
b) Applicant argue that “The claimed "change index" therefore provides an indicator capable of determining relative particle size even when the particle diameter changes from below to above the diameter of the measurement region, as described in paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], and [0068]-[0081] of the specification. ….., Nagao does not disclose or suggest this technical feature. ………………., Nagao does not disclose a change index that is a statistical quantity using respective integral values of the light reception intensity obtained over n floc formation state measurement time domains. …………."Nagao likewise does not disclose or suggest that "particle diameter may change across the diameter of the measurement region in a manner that creates such a reversal relationship." ……………………………, Applicant respectfully submits that Nagao does not disclose the amended limitation of Claim 1. ……………………………… specific technical indicator introduced to address a particular measurement problem arising when particle diameter changes around the diameter of the measurement region. For these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Nagao fails to disclose every limitation of amended Claim 1 and therefore does not anticipate the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
Regarding dependent claims 3-5 and 8-12, these dependent claims should overcome the rejections as a matter of law, for at least the reasons that these dependent claims contain all features of the independent claim 1.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to arguments (a) applicant arguments regarding arguments (b) is/are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments are not persuasive because the limitations being argued is rejected as being anticipated by Nagao, and the Applicant have not provided any proof and/or any factual evidence that the claim(s) limitation as recited in 1, is/are not anticipated. Rather, the arguments merely appear to be a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus/system is intended to be employed which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus/system from a prior art apparatus/system. Applicant is reminded that it is well settled that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the Applicant has not provided any proof and/or any factual evidence that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed determining a flocculation state of the particles based on a change index that represents a change in a light reception intensity of the scattered light, and Applicant is reminded that Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, it is noted that the features “The claimed "change index" therefore provides an indicator capable of determining relative particle size even when the particle diameter changes from below to above the diameter of the measurement region, as described in paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], and [0068]-[0081] of the specification.” are not recited in the amended claim(s) 1. As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and/or at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102.
In conclusion, Applicant has argued the patentability of dependent claims, based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s), and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the dependent claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious
wherein the change index is a light reception amount change index CI expressed by formula (1),
[Formula 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
106
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the formula (1),
Si: Integral value of the light reception intensity in an i-th floc formation state measurement time domain,
Save: Average value of integral values of the light reception intensity in the floc formation state measurement time domain when the light reception intensity is obtained n times in the floc formation state measurement time domain, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights