DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 03JUL2024 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13MAY2024. Applicant's arguments filed 03JUL2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding activated sludge, the Applicant acknowledges that COTE as a whole includes filtering activated sludge or mixed liquor. The example also includes turbidity and colour (C8/L23-24) and by no means says or implies that that example is only for clean water.
See updated rejection of claim 5.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-2,4-6,24-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over COTE (US 6245239) in view of MIN (US 20140076806) evidenced by Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Explained 2006.
Regarding claims 1,24-25, COTE teaches a cyclic aeration system for submerged membrane modules (title, e.g. Fig. 1A) including a method of air scouring an immersed (or submerged) membrane (abstract);
wherein the immersed membrane module is used to filter activated sludge and/or mixed liquor (as implied at C1/L19-21,40-42; in considering the disclosure of COTE, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01). see also Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Explained, particularly “activated sludge”. Note that the combination of raw sewage (or industrial wastewater) and biological mass is commonly known as Mixed Liquor.) within a membrane bioreactor (C4/L40-42); and,
comprising a step of adjusting a frequency at which bursts of bubbles are released between e.g. a permeation cycle and a backpulse cycle (see C8/L23-38 for an example of intermittent aeration between a permeation cycle and a backpulse cycle: 15min permeation + no air; 30sec air only; 15sec backpulse + air; 30sec air only).
COTE teaches further that a short burst of unusually large bubbles appear to have a significant cleaning or fouling inhibiting effect (C6/L36-39). COTE does not teach an intermittent gas sparger.
However, MIN teaches a method of aerating a filter using an aerator device (title, Figs.) including a method of air scouring an immersed membrane (par. [0033]) comprising a step of releasing bursts of bubbles from an intermittent gas sparger (par. [0006]; Figs. 1-2 #10).
MIN teaches their aerator is a high-efficiency, low-energy aerator (par. [0006]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of COTE with the intermittent gas sparging device of MIN in order to provide a high-efficiency, low-energy aerator. Such a modification would provide predictable results since both COTE and MIN have the motivation for improving immersed membrane cleaning. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Regarding claim 2, COTE teaches aeration is provided by a gas delivery device (e.g. Fig. 2 #240; see also e.g. Fig. 7A) comprising,
a) a manifold (Figs. 2,7A #251) adapted to be connected to a source of a pressurized gas; and,
b) a plurality of channels (Figs. 2,7A #238), each of the plurality of channels being in fluid communication with the manifold through a distinct associated port (port connecting channel to the manifold, each of the plurality of channels extending horizontally and having an open bottom (see the embodiment of Fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 4 COTE modified by MIN teaches:
a) bringing a flow of pressurized gas into a tank (MIN par. [0116]) below the conduits of the intermittent gas sparger (MIN see e.g. Fig. 26; par. [0112]; see also COTE Fig. 1A);
b) splitting the flow of pressurized gas into multiple horizontal flows of pressurized gas (see COTE Figs. 2,7A; see rejection of claim 2 above);
c) directing each of the multiple flows of pressurized to a different lateral position (see COTE Figs. 2,7A-D; see rejection of claim 2 above); and,
d) releasing bubbles from the different lateral positions (see COTE Figs. 2,7A-D; see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, COTE teaches an aeration flow rate is varied between a first permeation cycle and a second permeation cycle (see C8/L23-38 for an example of intermittent aeration between permeation cycles; the cycles were repeated every 15 min. and 15 sec. implicitly teaching a repeat of the method).
In considering the disclosure of COTE, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 6, COTE teaches the frequency at which bursts of bubbles are released is increased during a backpulse cycle relative to the frequency at which bursts of bubbles are released during a preceding permeation cycle (No air/bubbles during filtering, air/bubbles during a backwash; par. [0119]. In other words, the frequency of the bursts of bubbles is zero during a permeation cycle and non-zero during a backwash cycle; C8/L23-38).
Telephonic Inquiries
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Liam Royce/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights