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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 05, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 62829948, filed on April 05, 2019; which is a 371 of PCT/US2020/025006, filed on March 26, 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “a second carbon stage ... a predetermined concentration limit,” should be corrected to read “a second carbon stage ... a predetermined concentration limit;” for proper punctuation.
The phrase “a recirculation line … the second carbon stage,” should be corrected to read “a recirculation line … the second carbon stage;” for proper punctuation.
The phrase “a second reduced amount of COD comprising an increased fraction of biodegradable COD” should be corrected to read “a second reduced amount of COD and comprising an increased fraction of biodegradable COD” for clarity.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “separate the third treated stream and the second solids portion” should be corrected to read “separate the third treated stream from the second solids portion” for clarity.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “separate the third treated stream from the second material” should be corrected to read “separate the third treated stream from the second solids portion” for clarity, because the second material already comprises the third treated stream and the second solids portion.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “further comprises an overall decrease in COD” should be corrected to read “has an overall decrease in COD” for clarity, because an amount of COD does not comprise a decrease.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUNNINGHAM et al. (US20190046952A1, hereinafter CUNNINGHAM) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN105984991A, hereinafter ZHANG) and SMITH et al. (US20070209999A1, hereinafter SMITH).
Regarding Claim 1, CUNNINGHAM discloses processes and systems for efficiently treating wastewater in a multi-stage activated carbon system (¶[0001]).
FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system 100 for treating wastewater 108. The system 100 includes a powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) system 102 having at least a first stage 104 and a second stage 106 (i.e., first carbon stage and second carbon stage) (¶[0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CUNNINGHAM
The first stage 104 and the second stage 106 are distinct vessels that contain powdered activated carbon. The stages also include a biomass population having bacterial micro-organisms that digest biodegradable material. The first stage 104 treats wastewater 108 with powdered activated carbon to produce first treated material 110 with a reduced amount of contaminant (i.e., first treated stream). The first treated material 110 is directed to the second stage 106 for further activated-carbon treatment to produce polished stream 115 (i.e., third treated stream). The activated carbon material in the first stage 104 and the second stage 106 concentrates contaminants until the carbon material becomes spent. The first stage 104 and the second stage 106 produce spent carbon material 112 directed to wet air regeneration (WAR) system 114 for regeneration (i.e., wet air oxidation unit) (¶¶[0020]-[0023]).
The WAR system 114 includes dedicated reactor vessels in which spent carbon material 112 is regenerated and biological solids and organics are oxidized. The WAR units heat the material under conditions effective to produce effluent 116 including regenerated carbon material and waste material. The effluent 116 from each WAR unit is delivered to separation station 118, which provides cleaned carbon solids fraction 120 comprising regenerated carbon material and waste liquor 122 comprising byproducts from the WAR process (¶¶[0025]-[0026]).
The cleaned carbon solids fraction 120 is directed from separation station 118 to the second stage 106 to recycle and reuse regenerated carbon material from WAR system 114 (i.e., recirculation line for recycling regenerated carbon; ¶[0031]). The cleaned carbon solids fraction 120 is directed in a counterflow direction from the second stage 106 to the first stage 104 to replenish the first stage 104 with relatively clean regenerated carbon material as spent carbon is withdrawn. The system includes inlets, pathways, outlets, pumps, valves, flow sensors, and controllers for directing flows of regenerated carbon, spent carbon, and streams (¶¶[0035]-[0036]).
Regarding the “configured to” limitations associated with the claimed structural features, the corresponding structures disclosed by CUNNINGHAM are capable of the claimed configurations and functions. The claimed functional language does not distinguish the claimed structures from the prior art structures because the prior art structures are capable of performing the claimed functions (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding the claimed limitations such as COD, activated carbon, and biomass, these limitations are materials acted upon by the claimed system and do not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art absent structural difference (In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (1963); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576 (1967)).
However, CUNNINGHAM does not explicitly disclose an oxidation unit downstream of the first carbon stage and upstream of the second carbon stage.
ZHANG discloses a combined deep wastewater treatment process using an anoxic biological aerated filter (BAF), an aerobic BAF, an ozone contact reactor, and an aerobic biological activated carbon (BAC) filter (¶[0002]).
FIG. 1 illustrates a process flow including aerobic BAF 4, ozone contact oxidation tank 7, intermediate water tank 11, and aerobic BAC filter 14. Effluent from aerobic BAF 4 enters ozone contact oxidation tank 7 through aerobic BAF biological filter effluent pipe 6. In ozone contact oxidation tank 7, ozone breaks chains and opens rings of long-chain and heterocyclic organic matter in the water, degrading the organic matter into biodegradable organic matter for deep COD removal by subsequent BAC treatment. The water treated by ozone contact oxidation tank 7 enters intermediate water tank 11 through ozone contact oxidation tank outlet pipe 10. The effluent from intermediate water tank 11 enters aerobic BAC filter 14 through intermediate water tank lift pump 12 and intermediate water tank effluent pipeline system 13 for biochemical reactions, further removing COD, NH3-N, and TN from the water (¶¶[0033]-[0035]).
PNG
media_image2.png
445
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of ZHANG
The ozone contact oxidation process disclosed by ZHANG addresses residual COD that remains difficult to biodegrade after upstream biological treatment by using chemical oxidation to increase the BOD/COD ratio of wastewater before further biological treatment (¶[0006]). In view of CUNNINGHAM’s multi-stage activated carbon and biomass treatment system, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated an oxidation unit between the two treatment stages to predictably increase biodegradability before downstream treatment.
Regarding the “configured to” limitations associated with the oxidation unit, the corresponding structure disclosed by ZHANG is capable of the claimed configuration and function. The claimed functional language does not distinguish the claimed oxidation unit from the prior art structure because the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an oxidation unit, as disclosed by ZHANG, between the first and second treatment stages in the multi-stage treatment system by CUNNINGHAM.
However, modified CUNNINGHAM does not explicitly disclose a first separator separating the first treated stream from a first solids portion and a second separator separating the third treated stream from a second solids portion.
SMITH discloses a bioreactor system and method for treating wastewater, particularly a wastewater treatment system and method utilizing a membrane bioreactor (¶[0003]).
FIG. 1 illustrates a wastewater treatment system 100 including bioreactor 120, separator 130, optional inert solids separator 140, and powdered activated carbon regeneration unit 150 (¶[0055]).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of SMITH
Wastewater to be treated enters wastewater treatment system 100 through conduit 112 and passes through gross filter screen 110. The screened liquid is conveyed along conduit 114 to biological treatment tank 120 containing bacteria, and powdered activated carbon is added to biological treatment tank 120 via conduit 122. Wastewater entering biological treatment tank 120 contacts the powdered activated carbon and bacterial population, and the bacterial population digests biodegradable components in the wastewater to produce a mixed liquor. The mixed liquor and powdered activated carbon carrying organics pass to biomass separator 130 along conduit 124. In one embodiment, separator 130 is a membrane bioreactor. Biomass in the mixed liquor and powdered activated carbon are separated from the effluent and removed from separator 130 via conduit 132, and effluent is removed from an outlet of separator 130 via conduit 136 (¶¶[0055]-[0058]).
The biomass separator disclosed by SMITH separates biomass in the mixed liquor and powdered activated carbon from effluent (¶[0058]), which is a well-known practice for preventing solids from remaining in the treated stream and reducing solids buildup in downstream piping after treatment. In view of modified CUNNINGHAM’s multi-stage activated carbon and biomass treatment system, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated a separator downstream of each treatment stage to predictably prevent solids from remaining in the treated stream and reduce solids buildup in downstream piping.
Regarding the “configured to” limitations associated with the first separator and second separator, the corresponding structures disclosed by SMITH are capable of the claimed configurations and functions. The claimed functional language does not distinguish the claimed separators from the prior art structures because the prior art structures are capable of performing the claimed functions (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate separators, as disclosed by SMITH, respectively downstream of the distinct vessels of the first stage and second stage in the multi-stage treatment system by modified CUNNINGHAM.
Regarding Claim 3, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious the water treatment system of Claim 1. ZHANG discloses using ozone in the ozone contact oxidation tank (¶[0033]). Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Regarding Claim 6, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious a water treatment system of Claim 1. CUNNINGHAM discloses the first stage comprises a distinct vessel containing powdered activated carbon and a biomass population having bacterial micro-organisms that digest biodegradable material (¶¶[0020]-[0021]). SMITH discloses a bioreactor containing powdered activated carbon and biomass, with mixed liquor passing from the bioreactor to a biomass separator (¶¶[0057]-[0058]). Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Regarding Claim 7, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious a water treatment system of Claim 1. SMITH discloses that a bioreactor may be a membrane bioreactor with one or more filter membranes, and the treatment regions can be housed in a single vessel or in separate vessels (¶[0027]). Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Regarding Claim 8, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious a water treatment system of Claim 1. CUNNINGHAM discloses the second stage comprises a distinct vessel containing powdered activated carbon and a biomass population having bacterial micro-organisms that digest biodegradable material (¶¶[0020]-[0021]). SMITH discloses mixed liquor passing from a bioreactor to a biomass separator (¶¶[0057]-[0058]). Providing the same bioreactor-and-separator arrangement for the second stage is a mere duplication of parts absent a new and unexpected result (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960)). Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Regarding Claim 9, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious a water treatment system of Claim 1. SMITH discloses that a bioreactor may be a membrane bioreactor with one or more filter membranes, and the treatment regions can be housed in a single vessel or in separate vessels (¶[0027]). Providing the same membrane-bioreactor arrangement for the second stage is a mere duplication of parts absent a new and unexpected result (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960)). Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Regarding Claim 11, modified CUNNINGHAM makes obvious a water treatment system of Claim 1. The claimed overall decrease in COD is a functional result of operating the oxidation unit discussed in Claim 1. Regarding the functional and material-acted-upon limitations, see the discussion of Claim 1 (In re Otto; In re Casey; In re Schreiber).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over CUNNINGHAM in view of ZHANG and SMITH, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is 703-756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights