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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination does not present undue burden. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth in the Restriction Requirement of 3/4/2026, as there is serious burden given the separate status in the art, and different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4 and 9-10 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.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "incrementing a running count of consecutive instances of measured turbidity differences". Additionally, it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a "predetermined streak threshold". Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "smoothed difference signal". Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "rolling medium value" or "rolling average value".
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 (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 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, 11-14, 16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tibbetts et al. (WO2019/204387A1).
Re claims 1 and 11, Tibbetts et al. teach a method of directing a fluid through a fluid path (Fig. 1, in the machine 106) that includes industrial equipment (i.e. turbine, paragraph 3), during a CIP process to remove soils (paragraph 5) from the industrial equipment 106, the method comprising analyzing a turbidity (sensor 116, paragraph 30) of the bolus of the fluid 104 within the fluid path at a first time (Fig. 5, step 504) to provide a first measured turbidity of the bolus of the fluid, analyzing the turbidity of the bolus of the fluid within the fluid path at a second time (step 512, fig. 5) to provide a second measured turbidity of the bolus of the fluid, wherein the bolus of the fluid travels through the equipment between a first and a second time since paragraph 72 teaches the effluent can be redirected into the same machine; and controlling the CIP process based upon the determined end of the phase of the CIP process (step 514; Fig. 5). Re claim 11, Tibbetts et al. teach comparing the different between the first and the second measured turbidity as paragraph 69 teaches measuring the rate of change and comparing the value to the designated limit (i.e. threshold value) and step 516 teaches determining the end phase of the cleaning process. Re claim 2, refer to paragraph 2, which teaches recirculating the fluid through the path, which reads on a recirculation loop. The limitations of analyzing the turbidity of the bolus at a first and second time based on the turbidity sensor 116 are met based on paragraph 72 and Fig. 5, element 504 and 512. In reference to the first time being temporally offset from the second time by an amount of time it takes for the bolus to complete one circle, the limitations are met since the effluent is being recirculated (i.e. redirected into the same machine, paragraph 72). Re claim 3, refer to Fig. 5 and paragraph 72. Re claim 12, the claim is broadly interpreted as analyzing the turbidity the second and third time to determine whether the cleaning should continue. Applicant is directed to Fig. 5 and the flow diagram which allows for multiple measurements of turbidity, and comparing the measured turbidity to the designated limit to determine if cleaning is needed, wherein measuring one or more turbidity reads on the second and third measurements. The limitations of determining a difference between the turbidity measurements reads broadly on comparing the turbidity measurements to the designated limit to determine if cleaning is continued. Re claim 13, refer to paragraphs 40, which teaches examining the characteristics of the effluent over time (i.e. duration of the cleaning process) by the controller 102, also refer to Figs. 2-3 which teaches measurements of the sensor over time and paragraph 42 which teaches that the controller may "forecast" how much longer the cleaning process is to last. Re claim 14, refer to paragraph 69 which teaches using the controller to examine the rate of change of the turbidity measurements towards the desired or selected limit (i.e. threshold). Re claim 16, refer to paragraph 42 for example. Also refer to element 506 of Fig. 5. Re claim 18, the limitations are met since Tibbetts et al. teach a controller 102. Re claim 19, the limitations are met since the controller determines if the cleaning process is complete and therefore the flow is inherently stopped. Re claim 21, the limitations are met because the "volume of fluid" refers to element 104 that flows through a predetermined length of the fluid path (i.e. length of the machine 106) in a predetermined amount of time (Fig. 2 for example measuring the cleaning time).
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbetts et al. (WO2019/204387A1).
Re claim 5, Tibbetts et al. teach analyzing the turbidity of the bolus of the fluid at a first time and at a second time using the same turbidity sensor 116 and further teaches using a plurality of sensors (paragraph 28), wherein the first time is offset by the second time based on the recirculation of the effluent through the machine 114 as previously discussed. Tibbetts teaches the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of placing the sensors at different locations. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tibbetts et al. to include positioning a plurality of sensors at various locations in order to measure the turbidity/characteristics of the effluent in order to further determine if contaminants have been removed and if additional cleaning is required. Re claim 6, in reference to recirculation, refer to paragraph 72. In reference to measuring the turbidity continuously using a plurality of sensors, refer to paragraphs 28, 35 and 40, which teaches a plurality of sensors which can measure the characteristics repeatedly during the cleaning process and at different times during the cleaning process to determine whether the cleaning process should extended. Re claim 7, the limitations broadly read on calculating and comparing the turbidity signals as the effluent is redirected to the machine. Since Tibbetts teaches recirculating the effluent, and further teaches monitoring the turbidity with a plurality of sensors as the effluent is redirected to the machine, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continuously measure the turbidity in order to determine if additional cleaning is required. Re claims 8-9, refer to Fig. 5, for example element 516 and paragraph 69. Re claim 10, in view of the indefiniteness, the limitations are met as since Tibbetts teaches using sensors to detect the turbidity, wherein repeatedly measuring the turbidity during the cleaning process would result in an averaged turbidity value over time.
Claim(s) 15, 17 and 20 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbetts et al. (WO2019/204387A1) in view of Kenowski et al. (US2004/0118432A1).
Tibbetts et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of an alkaline circulation phase, the claimed industrial equipment and a rinsing phase. Kenowski et al. teach a clean in place apparatus with a cleaning solution having a measurable property (abstract, paragraph 11) such as turbidity, for measuring the property of the fluid to monitor the clean in place process of industrial equipment including tanks, valves, and piping requiring cleaning (paragraph 6), wherein the cleaning solution comprises a suitable alkaline cleaning solution (paragraph 25), followed by a rinsing step (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Tibbetts et al. to include an alkaline cleaning solution followed by a rinse step, as taught by Kenowski et al., for use in performing a cleaning in place process of conventional industrial equipment such as tanks, piping and valves.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stockert teaches a parts washer system. Tibbetts et al. teach CIP cleaning. Porter et al. is applicant's equivalent publication. Shmilovich et al. teach measuring properties of fluids. Famme et al. teach monitoring and controlling a cleaning process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights