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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safon et al (US PGPub 2022/0250952 A1) in view of Stewart et al (US PGPub 2016/0129377 A1) and Zauner et al (US PGPub 2011/0056522 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Safon teaches systems and methods for pool filtration [Abs] which includes a filter system (23), pumps (25), (27), sensors and valves for control (29), sanitizer (35), and a central controller (24) for operating the system [0034-0035, Fig. 1]. Filter embodiments represent, as currently understood, hybrid filter arrangements, which include a primary traditional filter (154) of sand, cartridge, or the like, and which may work in conjunction with an auxiliary filter (52) which may be a membrane device [0036-0037, Fig. 2]. The filter can be cleaned by initiating a backwash mode to recover from fouling and the like [0051]. The system includes provision for measuring pressure differential and the like and communicating this to the controller [0060].
Safon essentially differs from the instant claimed invention in that Safon does not specify that the controller determines operational efficiency of the filter at intervals of time and then initiates cleaning.
However, Stewart teaches filter systems and methods using integrated backwash and chemical cleaning by way of a control system [Abs] which monitor process implementation to determine when to perform backwash, cleaning, and the like. It may use data such as predetermined backwash frequency, filter flow rate, and the like to initiate washing [0032] based on historical data or modeling; further, if parameters fall outside of selected ranges, chemical cleaning may be initiated to restore operational efficiency [0034-0035]. Further, Stewart teaches that the controller may analyze process data for a selected time period i.e. a predetermined interval of time [Fig. 5, step 156] when determining cleaning needs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration process of Safon to feature cleaning logic as taught by Stewart because Safon already teaches various sensors for measuring operational performance, and already teaches mechanisms for initiating backwash cleaning and the like, as well as a controller for controlling the overall system and for managing sensor data, such that looking to the prior art for suitable programming to employ with these taught structures would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as means of utilizing the taught system effectively; and in view of Stewart, the programming of the controller in such a manner allows for cleaning to be initiated in a way that optimizes system performance.
Regarding the use of cleaning methods e.g. chemical cleaning as discussed by Stewart specifically with membrane devices such as the auxiliary filter of Safon, see Zauner, which teaches cleaning of polymeric membranes e.g. MF or UF membranes [Abs] using chemical cleaning agents to restore permeability to the membrane [0064-0065, Fig. 4]. As such, the combination would further have been obvious as a known means of maintaining membrane devices.
With respect to claim 2, at least Stewart teaches that the controller can analyze various parameters to determine media porosity [0041] which at minimum would render logic to determine permeability obvious, and that this can be used to control and indicate treatment need e.g. to ensure that the media is returned to an optimal state. Further, as above, Zauner explicitly examines permeability as an indication of membrane performance (and of cleaning effectiveness), such that directly measuring or calculating permeability would further have been obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Stewart teaches providing chemical cleaning agent to the filter via backwashing during the chemical cleaning mode.
With respect to claim 4, Safon and Stewart are silent to soak periods of at least one hour, but Zauner teaches soaking with chemicals for several hours e.g. oxidizing, then neutralizing, then draining [0048].
With respect to claim 5, Stewart teaches chemical cleaning during a backwash, and Safon teaches backwash flow paths [Fig. 18] which include feeding to the module and flushing from the module.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Stewart teaches logic for optimizing filter performance by measuring over periods of time and then initiating cleaning based on historical data, models, and the like. Further, as in Stewart and Zauner, evaluating porosity or permeability or the like as an indication of cleaning need and cleaning effectiveness would at least have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The prior art teaches the general conditions regarding logic for cleaning to maximize filtering performance, and the selection of appropriate time intervals at which evaluations should occur represent obvious engineering parameters for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize. The claimed intervals would be reached through such optimization.
With respect to claim 8, both Stewart and Safon teach backwash modes (i.e. without additional chemical) in which fluid is backwashed into the module.
With respect to claim 9, as above Stewart teaches determining e.g. porosity (such that permeability would at least have been obvious) as an indicator of performance, and measuring over predetermined periods of time, and determining backwash or chemical cleaning based on whether certain parameters fall outside of certain ranges. Further, as above, Zauner explicitly examines permeability as an indication of membrane performance (and of cleaning effectiveness), such that directly measuring or calculating permeability would further have been obvious. As such, the claimed logic would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over these teachings.
With respect to claim 10, Stewart teaches logic for optimizing filter performance by measuring over periods of time and then initiating cleaning based on historical data, models, and the like. Further, as in Stewart and Zauner, evaluating porosity or permeability or the like as an indication of cleaning need and cleaning effectiveness would at least have been obvious. Further Stewart explicitly teaches the use of threshold values to indicate when backwashing vs. chemical cleaning should be employed. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The prior art teaches the general conditions regarding logic for cleaning to maximize filtering performance, and the selection of appropriate threshold values for initiating one particular type of cleaning or another would have been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1 above. Safon teaches filter systems, backwash arrangements, and even sanitizer sources within filter system loops, but is silent to the specific claimed control logic. As above, the use of controller programming to evaluate system performance using sensor data over a predetermined period of time would have been obvious in view of Stewart, and thereafter to initiate backwash or chemical cleaning as needed. Regarding specifically chemical cleaning, even if it is considered that Safon does not positively teach the use of the chemicals for backwash purposes, the integration of cleaning chemicals into at least some phases of backwash would have been obvious in view of Stewart, which may switch from a normal backwash to a chemically-enhanced backwash when operational parameters fall outside of particular ranges and thus indicate more severe filter degradation.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Safon and Stewart are silent to concentrations or dosages but Zauner teaches that the amount of chemical added to prepare a cleaning solution may vary depending on feedwater properties and membrane foulants, and that different cleaning periods may use different agents or amounts [0038]. As such, optimization of the specific dosage at a particular time under particular conditions, and adjustment of dosages from one cleaning cycle to the next in view of changing conditions, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, as above Stewart teaches both chemical cleaning and backwash, and at least backwash would represent a flushing fluid; further, Safon teaches backwash may be drained via a waste conduit or equivalent [Fig. 18].
With respect to claim 16, see the discussions of claims 1 and 11 above. Safon teaches a hybrid filtration system with first and second stages which may be used in combination, as well as backwash means. Implementation of logic to control backwashing and cleaning of the filter at relevant points would have been obvious in view of Stewart, to optimize performance based on the structures already provided by Safon. Regarding a bypass mode, Safon further teaches that at least the membrane filter can be bypassed by actuating a suitable bypass mechanism (252) e.g. during backwash mode or otherwise [0044], to allow for optimal operation over a variety of flow conditions [0046].
With respect to claim 17, as above Stewart teaches both backwash and chemical cleaning, and teaches that this may be controlled using a suitable valve (104) which has connection to a backwash supply line (106) and a chemical supply line (108). As such, providing suitable valve control of the various options in the process of Safon would have been obvious to facilitate the same type of control.
With respect to claim 18, as above Zauner teaches tests in which a first soak is approximately 2 hours, then a second soak to neutralize is approximately 2 hours, followed by filtration with water to evaluate performance [0048] such that flushing (even if such included simply normal filtration) after soaking would at least have been obvious.
With respect to claim 19, as above Safon teaches that the secondary filter may be bypassed during periods of e.g. backwash; doing such during similar chemical cleaning would have been obvious when implementing the combined process for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 20, as above Stewart teaches determining e.g. porosity (such that permeability would at least have been obvious) as an indicator of performance, and measuring over predetermined periods of time, and determining backwash or chemical cleaning based on whether certain parameters fall outside of certain ranges. Further, as above, Zauner explicitly examines permeability as an indication of membrane performance (and of cleaning effectiveness), such that directly measuring or calculating permeability would further have been obvious. As such, the claimed logic would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over these teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights