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 Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 13-14, 16-17, 28, 30, 33, 36-37, and 43-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US 2014/0277746 in IDS) in view of Smith (US 2011/0259748), Hasegawa et al. (WO 2011/013531 machine translation provided by Examiner) and Wikramanayake et al. (US 2019/0194048).
Regarding claim 1, Konishi teaches a method for monitoring and controlling treatment of a waste water stream/raw water (city water supply), wherein the treatment involves subjecting the waste water stream to a solids separation unit (15) and at least one chemical treatment step, the method comprising measuring UV absorbance of a waste water influent and/or waste water effluent of the separation unit; measuring turbidity of the waste water influent and/or waste water effluent; determining a concentration of dissolved organics/organics in the waste water influent and/or waste water effluent based on the measured UV absorbance; controlling the dosing of at least one coagulant and/or other control chemical to the waste water influent based on the basis of the measured UV absorbance and/or the determined concentration of the dissolved organics (Fig. 1, [0037]-[0046], and [0078]-[0080]).
Konishi teaches that the waste/raw water being treated includes a variety of contaminants and that chemicals are added to treat said waste water. Konishi fails to teach that the process includes a biological treatment step in a bioreactor followed by the solids separation unit. Wikramanayake teaches that for a water treatment process that is capable of producing drinking water for a water supply grid ([0041]), it is known to provide various pretreatment means, such as a biological reactor (20) followed by solids separation units (30 40), wherein the wastewater is also treated with via a chemical treatment step/flocculants/coagulants (Fig. 1, [0036]-[0046], and [0057]-[0068]). Wikramanayake further teaches that multiple sensors are used throughout the system and the measured values of the sensors control the opening and closing of valves in the system capable of controlling the chemical concentrations within the system, with specific examples having the sensors being located in the various tanks and/or influent or effluent from the tanks ([0054], [0061], [0070]). As both Konishi and Wikramanayake teach controlling concentrations based on measured values of sensors and the water streams in both have a wide variety of contaminants, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to apply the Konishi method to specific wastewaters and sources that are also treated with biological treatment along with chemical addition with a reasonable expectation of success of doing so. Further both Konishi and Wikramanayake teach similar method steps and desired results (potable water for water grid). Therefore, including a biological treatment step as claimed would have been obvious as it further purifies and treats the wastewater being treated in order to remove undesirable biological contaminants.
Konishi teaches that “the UV absorbance is normally used to determine concentration of organic pollutants in measured water by measuring absorbance at a wavelength of 254 nm.” However, Konishi fails to explicitly teach that the organic concentration determination is based on dissolved organics and COD/hard COD. Smith teaches that UV absorbance means “monitors organic pollution in water based on UV absorption performance of organics dissolved in water” ([0073]). Hasegawa teaches that the readings determined by UV absorbance can be used to obtain a COD value. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to determine the dissolved organics concentration/COD/hard COD in the water monitored as the Konishi UV absorbance means provides specific details on the concentration of the dissolved organics/COD and already teaches monitoring the concentration of organics as a whole.
It is noted that the term hard COD is never used. However, the various readings at different point in the systems for the UV absorbance consistent with modified Konishi would result in COD values that would be considered “hard COD” as Applicant’s specification merely states hard COD is recalcitrant COD (COD after a treatment step) or after a biological treatment step. Thus, a measuring before a coagulant dosing but after a pretreatment biological treatment step would be considered measuring hard COD consistent with Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 36, Konishi teaches that the chemical addition rate for a plurality of treatment chemicals can be controlled with flocculants being one specifically cited ([0071]-[0073] and [0094]).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-7, Konishi teaches that measurements of the UV absorbance are taken in the influent and effluent of a treatment process (upstream or downstream of what could a secondary and/or tertiary treatment process) but fails to teach the water being pretreated via sedimentation and biologically. Wikramanayake teaches a similar method where various sampling/measuring points ([0054], [0061], [0070]) are provided in a water treatment process wherein a pretreatment process can include a physical and biological treatment means (sedimentation and biological) as well as a downstream additional treatment processes (settling and biological) (Fig. 1), and wherein the data from the samples is used to control various additions. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple sampling/measuring points within the process at different points as well as provide the mechanical and biological treatment means stated in Wikramanayake in order to accurately measure the contaminants for removal while controlling the dosage of chemicals and removal of said contaminants as such method steps are known in the art and would provide a monitored process and treated water. Further, changing the sequence of method steps to rearrange the order of measuring of the UV absorbance, pretreatment, and dosage would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art (Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 13, it is submitted that in order to determine the organic concentration and optimize dosage based on UV absorbance, some sort of calibration equation/curve would be needed. As such, the claimed steps would have been either inherently present, or obvious to provide in order to correlate the measured readings to organic concentrations.
Regarding claim 14, Konishi teaches that the UV absorbance is measured at a wave length of 254 nm ([0078]).
Regarding claim 16, Konishi teaches that the UV absorbance and turbidity are measured and the organic concentration is determined ([0078]). As such, one skilled in the art would use all data measured in order to determine the total organic concentration as it would provide relevant data for the dosing of the chemical.
Regarding claim 17, Konishi teaches that the process is controlled via a controller making the process an automated method.
Regarding claim 28, it is submitted that the Konishi method and means to perform said method would include an apparatus as claimed. Further, it is Examiner’s position that the UV absorbance spectrometer and turbidity meter in Konishi would be considered optical measurers, or it would have been obvious for the UV absorbance spectrometer and turbidity meter to be optical measurers as such means are commonly used in the art.
Regarding claim 30, it is submitted that as Konishi teaches the pH being a parameter monitored used to control the dosages, the pH and coagulant dosing would have been a key variable monitored.
Regarding claim 33, Konishi teaches optimizing the dosage of chemicals based on the measured parameters.
Regarding claim 37, Konishi teaches that the turbidity measurements are done and a controller is used to control the dosage of the various chemicals. It is submitted that common turbidity measurement apparatuses in the art would include optical sensors (see Konishi [0077] and [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 43-46, Konishi fails to teach including a primary pretreatment step/sedimentation unit capable of removing sludge/solids upstream of the biological treatment step. Wikramanayake teaches that including a primary pretreatment step/sedimentation unit (15) capable of removing sludge/solids upstream of the biological treatment step in order to remove larger solid contaminants prior to the downstream biological treatment, chemical treatment, and solids separation (Fig. 1 and [0059]).
Regarding claim 47, both Konishi and Wikramanayake teach the chemical treatment step including adding a coagulant/flocculant in the influent to the solids separation step (Konishi Fig. 3 and Wikramanayake Fig. 1 coagulant addition before separator 40).
Regarding claim 48, Konishi teaches that the UV absorbance and turbidity is measured in the influent to the system prior to any treatment steps, which when applied to modified Konishi would be prior to the biological treatment step. Further, Wikramanayake explicitly teaches sensors placed in the influent to the biological reactor ([0061]) and/or the effluent after the biological treatment unit and coagulant addition ([0070]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US 2014/0277746 in IDS) in view of Hasegawa et al. (WO 2011/013531 machine translation provided by Examiner), Smith (US 2011/0259748), and Wikramanayake et al. (US 2019/0194048) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Spani (US 2013/0062288).
Regarding claim 15, see claim 1 above for the water being biologically treated. Konishi teaches that the pH is a parameter that would be measured but fails to teach the pH being measured at various points throughout the treatment process and a pH adjustment chemical is provided based on the pH readings. Spani teaches that in treating water, pH is an essential parameter that is monitored and controlled and that pH sensors can be provided throughout the treatment system thereby providing data on the pH throughout the whole treatment process. Further, the pH data is used to adjust the pH of the water being treated accordingly (claims 1 and 7 and [0020]-[0023]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple pH sensors throughout the treatment system in modified Konishi in order to monitor and control the pH via the controlled addition of pH adjustment chemicals thereby ensuring proper pH for the treatment process and treated effluent.
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US 2014/0277746 in IDS) in view of Hasegawa et al. (WO 2011/013531 machine translation provided by Examiner), Smith (US 2011/0259748) and Wikramanayake et al. (US 2019/0194048) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeda (US 2011/0253625).
Regarding claims 31-32, Konishi fails to teach that phosphorous (dissolved or total phosphorous) are measured and the coagulant dosage is adjusted based on the measured phosphorous. Takeda teaches that for coagulant dosing for wastewaters containing phosphorous and organic matter, phosphorous measurements (22) are taken and a coagulant dosage (24) is optimized in order to remove both the organic matter and phosphorous (Fig. 1 and [0082]). As such. It would have been obvious to include a phosphorous measuring step with the UV absorbance and turbidity measurement step in order to better control the coagulant dosing for removing the desired amount of organic matter and phosphorous from the waste water being treated. It is noted that Takeda does not specifically teach the phosphorous reading being dissolved phosphorous or total phosphorous. However, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to measure any form of the forms of phosphorous in order to monitor and efficiently remove phosphorous from the water being treated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-12 and 49 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the above rejection has been modified to address the added claim limitations of a bioreactor followed by a solids separation unit.
Applicant argues that including a biological treatment step would make modified Konishi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as biological treatment would make the drinking water dangerous. Wikramanayake teaches that such a modification would not render the treated water incapable of being used as a drinking water supply and is known in the art ([0041]) thus rebutting the main premise of Applicant’s argument.
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 PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777