DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 09/03/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18 and 25-29 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Due to the Applicant’s arguments (pg. 11-14), the previous 35 USC § 112 rejection is removed.
Drawings
Due to the Applicant’s amendments (filed 01/27/2025), the previous drawings objections have been removed.
Specification
Due to the Applicant’s amendments (filed 01/27/2025), the previous specification objections have been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that reference Shitara does not teach ozofractionation (pg. 15). Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Publication US20050109697A1 (‘Olivier’).
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 reads “The method of any claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18 and 25-29 are 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 claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 25 read “the integrated ozofractionation chamber”, the phrase not being present in the originally filed specification. It is unclear what components were integrated to form the ozofractionation chamber or whether the ozofractionation chamber was integrated with additional components.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18 and 25-29 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.
Claims 1 and 25 recite the limitation "the integrated ozofractionation chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 25 read “…a separated foam fractionate that is removed from the method.” It is unclear how a structure can be removed from a method. Perhaps, this was intended to read “a separated foam fractionate that is removed from the ozofractionation chamber”.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claims 1 and 25, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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.
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, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 16, 18, 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20050109697A1 (‘Olivier’) in view of U.S. Publication US20140190896A1 (‘Dickson’) and in further view of Publication Water Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation (‘Horst’, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 00, no. 00/ 2018).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 10, 13-14, 16 and 18, Olivier teaches a method for remediating (abstract) sewage ([0109] and [0194]) that contains persistant contaminants ([0170]), the method comprising:
ozofractionating the sewage in an ozofractionation chamber (Fig. 1, [0057-0058], foam fractionator separator (FFS) 140), the ozofractionating comprising:
(a) introducing, into the ozofractionation chamber, ozone-containing bubbles ([0058]) to thereby oxidize contaminants ([0104]) and foam, at a top portion of the ozofractionation chamber ([0058] and [0105]), a foam fractionate including persistant contaminants ([0058]), and
(b) separating the foam fractionate from the top portion of the integrated ozofractionation chamber to form a separated foam fractionate that is removed from the method for subsequent destruction or disposal ([0067] and Fig. 2a-2j, [0099-0103]);
allowing the ozofractionated wastewater to quiesce for a period of time whereby substantially all residual ozone in the ozofractionated wastewater is utilized to produce a quiesced ozofractionated wastewater ([0062] and [0199], reducing amount of ozone which flows to the bio-filter so that the bacteria in the bio-filter are not harmed by ozone); and
contacting the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater with a microorganism population ([0067] and [0199], bio-filter 160) under conditions effective to biologically remediate the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater ([0068]).
Olivier does not teach that the ozone-containing bubbles are having a size of less than about 200 µm and to an amount of ozone of between about 5-150 mg/L/hour.
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 6: allowing occurs during transfer of the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater to the microorganism population (Olivier, [0062], degassed before leaving the in-line FFS system).
Claim 7: maintaining the microorganism population whereby it remains effective to continuously biologically remediate the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater (Olivier, [0070] and [0138]).
Claim 10: the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater is contacted with a first microorganism population in a primary biological digestion (Olivier, [0070).
Claim 13: treating the wastewater after the primary biological digestion (Olivier, Fig. 1, [0079], water from retention tank 170 can be circulated back for reprocessing in the FFS) to increase the ORP of the wastewater (Olivier, [0058], oxygen-containing gas) before further biological remediation (Olivier, Fig. 1, [0068]).
Claim 14: a secondary ozofractionation (Olivier, Fig. 1, [0079], water from retention tank 170 can be circulated back for reprocessing in the FFS. Olivier, [0062], multiple FFS systems) of the wastewater after the primary biological digestion (Olivier, Fig. 1, [0072]), the secondary ozofractionation being under conditions effective to increase the ORP of the wastewater (Olivier, [0058], oxygen-containing gas) and convert species in the wastewater (Olivier, [0104]) into species that are more conducive to aerobic biodegradation (Olivier, [0069], oxygen-containing gas increases the efficiency of the aerobic bacteria).
Claim 16: the secondary ozofractionation comprises exposing the wastewater to an amount of ozone of about 0.5 mg/L/hour to about 5 mg/L/hour (see previous office action, dated 05/07/2025 for sample calculation).
Claim 18: a final ozofractionation in which the biologically remediated wastewater is ozofractionated again (Olivier, Fig. 1, [0079], water from retention tank 170 can be circulated back for reprocessing in the FFS. Olivier, [0062], multiple FFS systems) under conditions whereby particulate material is captured in a foam fractionate for separation (Olivier, [0058] and [0105]), and a portion of the re-ozofractionated wastewater is recycled back into the microorganism population (Olivier, [0068]).
Regarding Claims 25-27 and 29, Olivier teaches a method for co-remediating (abstract) sewage ([0109] and [0194]) and trade wastewater ([0038-0039], flushing water used to clean animal enclosures), the method comprising:
ozofractionating the trade wastewater in an ozofractionation chamber (Fig. 1, [0057-0058], foam fractionator separator (FFS) 140), the ozofractionating comprising:
(a) introducing, into the ozofractionation chamber, ozone-containing bubbles ([0058]) to thereby oxidize contaminants ([0104]) and foam, at a top portion of the ozofractionation chamber ([0058] and [0105]), a foam fractionate including persistent contaminants ([0058]) and an ozofractionated trade wastewater which contains an amount of persistent contaminants that is about the same as or less than an amount of the persistent contaminants contained in the sewage ([0068]); and
(b) separating the foam fractionate from the top portion of the integrated ozofractionation chamber to form a separated foam fractionate that is removed from the method for subsequent destruction or disposal ([0067] and Fig. 2a-2j, [0099-0103]);
mixing the ozofractionated trade wastewater (Fig. 1, [0079], water is pumped back to flushing tank 100) into the sewage to produce a combined wastewater (Fig. 1, [0046-0047], mixing tank 120 mixes flushing water and waste products);
ozofractionating the combined wastewater under conditions whereby a foam fractionate comprising persistent contaminants in the combined wastewater is produced and separated from an ozofractionated combined wastewater ([0058]);
quiescing the ozofractionated combined wastewater, whereby a residual ozone content of the ozofractionated combined wastewater is reduced to produce a quiesced ozofractionated combined wastewater ([0062] and [0199], reducing amount of ozone which flows to the bio-filter so that the bacteria in the bio-filter are not harmed by ozone); and
contacting the quiesced ozofractionated combined wastewater with a microorganism population ([0067] and [0199], bio-filter 160) under conditions effective to biologically remediate the quiesced ozofractionated combined wastewater ([0068]).
Olivier does not teach that the ozone-containing bubbles are having a size of less than about 200 µm and to an amount of ozone of between about 5-150 mg/L/hour.
Dickson also relates to a method of remediating wastewater that contains persistant ([0008]) contaminants (abstract), including bubbles having a size of less than 200 µm ([0025]) and an amount of ozone of between about 5-150 mg/L/hr (see previous office action, dated 05/07/2025 for sample calculation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bubble size of Dickson and the ozone-containing bubbles of Olivier to facilitate air-water interface partitioning in foam while maximizing the surface area for collecting contaminants (Horst, pg. 5, last Pr – pg. 6, Pr1). It would have been obvious to also combine the amount of ozone of Dickson and the method of Olivier and Dickson to enable complete oxidation of all possible contaminants in the waste, and the quantity of ozone and time can be varied depending on the rate at which waste requires treatment (Dickson, [0030]). Note that both Olivier and Dickson involve treating wastewater containing contaminants including grease (Olivier, [0058] and Dickson, [0008]), phosphorus-containing compounds and nitrogen-containing compounds (Olivier, [0065] and [0169], and Dickson, [0008]) and heavy metals (Olivier, [0169] and Dickson, [0002]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 26: the ozofractionating the trade wastewater comprises multiple ozofractionations (Olivier, [0062], multiple FFS systems), each subsequent ozofractionation further reducing the amount of the persistent contaminants contained in each subsequent ozofractionated trade wastewater (Olivier, [0063], multiple FFS placed from largest to smallest. Olivier, [0060], smaller FFS used when less solids remain).
Claim 27: the ozofractionation(s) are carried out until the amount of the persistent contaminants contained in the ozofractionated trade wastewater is about half of the amount of the persistent contaminants contained in the sewage (Olivier, [0063]).
Claim 29: the ozofractionating the trade wastewater that contains persistent contaminants comprises exposing the wastewater to a foam of bubbles comprising ozone and having a size of less than about 200 μm (Dickson, [0025]) and/or exposing the wastewater to an amount of ozone of between about 50 mg/L/hour to about 150 mg/L/hour (see previous office action, dated 05/07/2025 for sample calculation).
Claims 2, 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20050109697A1 (‘Olivier’), U.S. Publication US20140190896A1 (‘Dickson’) and Publication Water Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation (‘Horst’, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 00, no. 00/ 2018) as applied to claims 1, 14 and 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20160068417A1 (‘Buschmann’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 2, 15 and 28, the combination of Olivier, Dickson and Horst teaches the method of Claims 1, 14 and 25, except the ozofractionating the sewage comprises exposing the sewage to an amount of ozone effective to increase the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the sewage to above about 750 mV, the secondary ozofractionation comprises exposing the wastewater to an amount of ozone effective to increase the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the wastewater to between about 150 mV to about 200 mV (Note that Olivier teaches comparatively lesser amounts of ozone being introduced into the second FFS, Olivier, [0199]), and the ozofractionating the trade wastewater comprises exposing the wastewater to an amount of ozone effective to increase the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the wastewater to above about 750 mV.
Buschmann also relates to a method for remediating wastewater that contains contaminants (abstract and [0017]), including increasing the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) to above about 750 mV (Fig. 9) and to between about 150 mV to about 200 mV (Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the oxidation reduction potential values of Buschmann and the combination of Olivier, Dickson and Horst to obtain a desired activity as a chemical oxidant (Buschmann, [0077]) and to help the aerobic bacteria reduce total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) (Olivier, [0048] and [0199]).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20050109697A1 (‘Olivier’), U.S. Publication US20140190896A1 (‘Dickson’) and Publication Water Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation (‘Horst’, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 00, no. 00/ 2018) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20180282187A1 (‘Shitara’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 9 and 12, the combination of Olivier, Dickson and Horst teaches the method of Claims 1 and 10, except that the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater is biologically remediated in an activated sludge process, a membrane bioreactor process or a membrane aerated bioreactor process, and an activated sludge which settles during the primary biological digestion is recycled back into a wastewater pre-ozofractionation.
Shitara teaches a method ([0001]) for remediating sewage ([0033]) that contains persistent contaminants ([0031]), including that the quiesced ozofractionated wastewater is biologically remediated in an activated sludge process, a membrane bioreactor process (Shitara, [0032]), or a membrane aerated bioreactor process, and
an activated sludge which settles during the primary biological digestion (activated sludge from biological treatment tank 4, Shitara, [0033]) is recycled back into a wastewater pre-ozofractionation (Shitara, Fig. 8, [0079], sediment can be circulated back to storage tank 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the membrane bioreactor process of Shitara and the combination of Olivier, Dickson and Horst, because Olivier teaches that any bio-filter known in the art may be used in the process (Olivier, [0071]), and both the membrane bioreactor process of Shitara and the bio-filter of Olivier involve a filter to which aerobic bacteria are adhered (see Shitara, [0032] and Olivier, [0152]). It would have been obvious to recycle activated sludge back into a wastewater pre-ozofractionation, as demonstrated by Shitara, in the combination of Olivier, Dickson and Horst, to reduce waste disposal cost (Shitara, [0006]) and so wastewater and sludge can be combined to improve the efficiency of adsorption of aerobic microorganisms to polluted substances (Shitara, [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779