DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on November 19, 2025, and any subsequent filings.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, and 26-33 stand rejected. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, and 26-33 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 8 (“Pg”)), filed November 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, and 26-33 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of Applicant’s amendments which do not have support in the specification as file.1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 26-28 and 30-32
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended Claim 26 and Claims 27, 28, and 30-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, 29, and 33
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, 29, and 33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, and 26-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claims 18 and 26 have been amended to recite adding an electron donor or organic substrate during the biological nitrogen removal process which includes the denitrification reaction. However, nothing in the specification supports the addition occurring during the denitrification reaction.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 26-28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wett, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0069864 (“Wett”) in view of Marsman, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,342,522 (“Marsman”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 26-28 and 30-32, Wett discloses a wastewater treatment method for nitrogen removal from wastewater (Abstract), comprising receiving wastewater in one or more zones (Fig. 7, item 102, Paragraphs 13,37,46 (“Pr”)); applying to said wastewater a biological nitrogen removal process (Fig. 7, Abstract, Pr13,37,46), wherein said biological nitrogen removal process includes a partial denitrification reaction in which nitrate is reduced to nitrite under an anoxic condition using electron donor or organic substrate (Fig. 1, Pr3,13,14,46,65), and an anammox reaction in which the nitrite is used as an electron acceptor under an anoxic condition (Figs. 3, 7, Pr46,65); introducing nitrate or ammonium into said one or more zones (Fig. 2, Pr46); and maintaining at least a residual amount of the nitrate in said one or more zones while otherwise maximizing the reduction of the nitrate in the partial denitrification reaction (Abstract, Pr13,31,33), wherein the oxidized nitrogen concentration includes an on-line or off-line measured nitrate concentration associated with the partial denitrification reaction (Pr33), wherein the method further comprises adding electron donor or organic substrate to said one or more zones to promote denitrification during the biological nitrogen removal process (Pr33), and the adding of the electron donor or the organic substrate is performed such that the on-line or off-line measured nitrate concentration is higher than 1.5 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen, for more than 50% of a reactor or filter volume in space or time (Fig. 1, Pr33,46,50,56,65, Claim 1).
Wett does not disclose a biofilm with a controlled thickness of about 50 μm to about 400 μm and/or a physical selector with granule size control.
Marsman also relates to a biofilm apparatus and discloses controlling the thickness of biofilm by varying aeration and flow rate of water over the support material (C3/L 12-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of biofilms as taught by Marsman for use in the device disclosed by Wett, and through routine experimentation vary the thickness of the biofilm, in order to optimize the aerobic conditions of the microorganism and to prevent clogging of the support material (Marsman, C3/L2-11 ), because Wett and Marsman are directed towards treatment of wastewater to remove nitrogen, and because Wett and Marsman are also directed towards removal of nitrogen using biofilms.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 27: wherein part or all of the nitrite is reduced to dinitrogen gas by anammox bacteria (Wett, Fig. 3, Pr46,65 (note anammox converts ammonia and nitrite to dinitrogen gas)). Claim 28: wherein the electron donor or the organic substrate includes a degradable carbon source including: a. alcohols; b. volatile fatty acids; c. carbohydrates; d. wastewater carbon; e. carbon from industrial wastes or manufacturing byproducts; f. methane; g. aldehydes or ketones; and/or h. inorganic electron donor (Wett, Pr46). Claim 30: maintaining a certain electron donor dosing rate or normalized electron donor dosing rate per total inorganic nitrogen removed (Wett, Pr31,39) by sensing or measuring electron donor dosing rate and/or nitrate, nitrite or ammonium removal rates that are suitable for maximizing the process rate for denitratation and/or anammox within the biological nitrogen removal process (Wett, Pr33,60,66). Claim 31: wherein the biological nitrogen removal process uses plastic, sand, anthracite, expanded clay, ceramic, sponges, activated carbon, magnetite, alumina, silica, porous or non-porous rock, wood chips or cellulose rich material, starch or other carbonaceous support material, iron or iron rich material, stones, shells, rubber, resins including nitrate, nitrite or ammonium selective resins, membrane biofilms or encapsulated in pure or mixed cultures, or materials rich in electron donor, electron acceptor or other micronutrients (Wett, Pr36,46). Claim 32: wherein the one or more zones include distinct tanks, multiple stages within a single tank, within single or in multi-media, within single or multiple aggregates, biofilm or granules, or other hybrid approaches in single or multiple filters or reactors (Wett, Fig. 7, items A, F, Pr36,46).
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Wett, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0069864 (“Wett”) in view of Lemaire, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0261335 (“Lemaire”) and further in view of Marsman, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,342,522 (“Marsman”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, and 33, Wett discloses a wastewater treatment method for nitrogen removal from wastewater (Abstract), comprising receiving wastewater in in one or more zones (Fig. 7, item 102, Pr13,37,46); applying to said wastewater a biological nitrogen removal process (Fig. 7, Abstract, Pr13,37,46), wherein said biological nitrogen removal process includes a partial denitrification reaction in which nitrate is reduced to nitrite under an anoxic condition (Fig. 1, Pr3,13,14,46), and an anammox reaction in which the nitrite is used as an electron acceptor under an anoxic condition (Figs. 3, 7, Pr46,65); introducing nitrate or ammonium into said one or more zones (Fig. 2, Pr46); and adding an electron donor to said one or more zones to promote denitratation (Fig. 1, Pr33,46,65 (note the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification is that denitratation is the reduction of nitrate to nitrite (Spec., Pg8/Pr1)), wherein the electron donor comprises a degradable carbon source including alcohol, volatile fatty acid, carbohydrate, wastewater carbon, carbon from industrial wastes or manufacturing byproducts, methane, aldehyde, or ketone, and/or an inorganic electron donor (Pr46).
Wett does not disclose a biofilm with a controlled thickness of about 50 μm to about 400 μm and/or a physical selector with granule size control or where the electron donor is added via a bypass of wastewater carbon and/or ammonia during the biological nitrogen removal process.
Marsman also relates to a biofilm apparatus and discloses controlling the thickness of biofilm by varying aeration and flow rate of water over the support material (C3/L 12-30).
Lemaire also relates to a wastewater treatment method and discloses adding an electron donor via a bypass of wastewater carbon and/or ammonia (Fig. 4, item 18, Pr64,120,141).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of biofilms as taught by Marsman for use in the device disclosed by Wett, and through routine experimentation vary the thickness of the biofilm, in order to optimize the aerobic conditions of the microorganism and to prevent clogging of the support material (Marsman, C3/L2-11 ), because Wett and Marsman are directed towards treatment of wastewater to remove nitrogen, and because Wett and Marsman are also directed towards removal of nitrogen using biofilms. It would have also been obvious to the method disclosed by Wett and Marsman with the bypass disclosed by Lemaire because, according to Lemaire, the bypass allows for controlling the amount of carbon added so as to avoid excess costs (Pr82) while ensuring the elimination of nitrates (Pr9).
Regarding Claim 29, Wett discloses the method of Claim 26 except wherein an ammonia of approximately half a milligram to two milligrams nitrogen per liter is maintained in an effluent to maximize anammox reactions.
Lemaire also relates to a wastewater treatment method and discloses wherein an ammonia of approximately half a milligram to two milligrams nitrogen per liter is maintained in an effluent to maximize anammox reactions (Fig. 5, Pr213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust an ammonia concentration as needed because, according to Lemaire, the “volume of water added into the reactor at each sub-cycle can be different and depends on the concentration of NH4 in the reactor” (Pr213).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3: wherein the adding of the electron donor includes dosing to meet an effluent nitrate requirement (Lemaire, Pr23,79,147), and to maximize ammonia removal (Lemaire, Fig. 5); wherein the nitrogen removal process is controlled using additional online ammonia and nitrate sensors (Lemaire, Pr52,123); and a target ratio of nitrate removal to ammonia removal is used to control an upper bound on carbon dosing (Lemaire, Pr82,89), such that maximum nitrogen removal is achieved (Lemaire, Fig. 5). Claim 5: wherein part or all of the nitrite generated is reduced to dinitrogen gas by anammox bacteria (Wett, Fig. 3, Pr46,65 (note anammox converts ammonia and nitrite to dinitrogen gas); Lemaire, Fig. 3, Pr19). Claim 6: bioaugmentation of heterotrophs or autotrophs including anammox organisms from a reactor having a feed concentration greater than 200 milligram ammonium nitrogen per liter (Lemaire, Figs, 3, 4, Pg9/Table). Claim 8: wherein an ammonia of approximately half a milligram to two milligrams nitrogen per liter is maintained in an effluent to maximize anammox reactions (Lemaire, Fig. 5, Pr209,213). Claim 9: maintaining a certain electron donor dosing rate or normalized electron donor dosing rate per total inorganic nitrogen removed (Wett, Pr31,39; Lemaire, Fig. 4, Pr122 (note presence and removal of solids in form of sludge and controlled injection of dosing carbon via pump 19)); by sensing or measuring electron donor dosing rate and/or nitrate, nitrite or ammonium removal rates that are suitable for maximizing the process rate for denitratation and/or anammox within the biological nitrogen removal process (Wett, Pr33,60,66; Lemaire, Pr122). Claim 12: wherein the biological nitrogen removal process uses plastic, sand, anthracite, expanded clay, ceramic, sponges, activated carbon, magnetite, alumina, silica, porous or non-porous rock, wood chips or cellulose rich material, starch or other carbonaceous support material, iron or iron rich material, stones, shells, rubber, resins including nitrate, nitrite or ammonium selective resins, membrane biofilms or encapsulated in pure or mixed cultures, or materials rich in electron donor, electron acceptor or other micronutrients (Wett, Pr36,46; Lemaire, Pr120,139,141). Claim 14: wherein one or more zones include distinct tanks, multiple stages within a single tank, within single or in multi-media, within single or multiple aggregates, biofilm or granules, or other hybrid approaches in single or multiple filters or reactors (Wett, Fig. 7, items A, F, Pr36,46; Lemaire, Fig. 4, item 10). Claim 15: wherein the electron donor includes a degradable carbon source including: a alcohols; b volatile fatty acids; c carbohydrates; d wastewater carbon; e carbon from industrial wastes or manufacturing byproducts; f methane; g aldehydes or ketones; and/or h inorganic electron donor (Wett, Pr46; Lemaire, Pr141). Claim 16: providing anammox bacteria, and retaining the anammox bacteria in said one or more zones by physical selectors including screen, cyclone, airlift reactor, magnetic separator or any other gravimetric, flotation or filtration device (Wett, Pr46; Lemaire, Fig. 4, item 10 (note tank 10 is both gravimetric and flotation device)). Claim 19: an ammonia measurement (Wett, Pr51; Lemaire, Pr122). Claim 24: wherein the anammox reaction includes conversion of ammonium to dinitrogen gas by anammox bacteria (Wett, Fig. 3; Lemaire, Fig. 3, Pr17,19). Claim 33: wherein the wastewater ammonia is from a mainstream or sidestream process (Wett, Fig. 7, Pr64).
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 PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 Applicant cites to numbered paragraphs in the specification asserting these are as originally filed (Pg8) yet the specification as originally filed contains no numbered paragraphs.