DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same references.
On page 4 of the Remarks as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant summarizes the amendments to the claims. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 rejections and objections.
On pages 4-5, Applicant argues that previous anticipatory reference Pembroke, (US 2017/0349460), does not disclose the presently amended claimed invention of independent Claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Pembroke does not disclose a calculation based on a currently determined flocculating-agent charge density. Applicant also argues that Pembroke discloses a set-point feedback system for a filtrate/aliquot, not a charge-balance calculation, and argues that Pembroke uses a pre-determined fixed titrant dose, while the claims now require detecting excess/deficit and automatically selecting a suitable cationic or anionic titrant. Here, the Examiner notes that it is not clear based on the claim language that a specific calculation is required, or that the charge density is for a flocculating-agent charge density. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claim language only requires detection of an excess or deficit and automatically adding a cationic or anionic titrant in response. The Examiner maintains that Pembroke discloses a detection of when the measurement of the charge density exceeds the target range, (See paragraphs [0105]-[0114]), and then automatically adds titrant that is cationic, (See paragraph [0099]-[0101]; cationic coagulant (titrant) selected when setpoint range is exceeded). For these reasons, the Examiner finds these remarks unpersuasive.
On page 5, Applicant also argues that secondary reference Jorden et al., (“Jorden”, US 2019/0270655), does not allegedly remedy the noted deficiencies of Pembroke. Applicant argues that Jorden does not disclose the specific claimed calculation or monitoring the charge density during the method and replacing previous values with current values. The Examiner notes that Pembroke already discloses monitoring the charge density and adding titrant when the charge density falls outside a certain setpoint range. As a result, Jorden does not need to disclose these features. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Jorden does disclose the claimed feature where previous values are updated with current values, (See Figures 31-33, either HMS addition 5200 or Polymer Coagulant Dosage 5300, See paragraphs [0371]-[0376] and [0390]-[0410], Jorden). Thus, the rejection of independent Claim 1 using the prior art of record still stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the charge density” on line 11. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “the target charge density”, “flocculating agent charge density”, as previously recited in the claim. Examiner interprets it to be the same as “the target charge density”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the detected sign” on line 13. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a sign”, or something different. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the respective prevailing determined value” on lines 31-32. It is not clear to which “prevailing determined values” this particular “prevailing determined value” refers.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 & 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pembroke, (US 2017/0349460), in view of Jorden et al., (“Jorden”, US 2019/0270655).
Claims 1-4, 6-10 & 12-14 are directed to a method for flocculating solid particles contained in a suspension, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6-10 & 12-14, Pembroke discloses a method for flocculating solid particles contained in a suspension, (See paragraph [0001], [0006], [0022]), comprising the following steps: a. preparing a suspension and specifying a target charge density (dEqz) for the suspension, (See paragraph [0047], [0056], [0057]), with the proviso that the target charge density (dEqz) is a charge density of the suspension at which the solid particles flocculate, (See paragraphs [0056], [0057], [0073] & [0099]); b. providing a flocculating agent, wherein the flocculating agent has a flocculating agent charge density (deEqp) ,(See paragraph [0112], [0106]); c. for a plurality of measurement time points (N), (See paragraphs [0105]-[0112]): determining a suspension charge density (dEqM) in the suspension by way of a titrimetric analysis based on a charge titration with measurement of the streaming potential, (See paragraphs [0098]-[0104] & [0112]), using a streaming current detector, (See paragraphs [0055], [0057] & [0059]), wherein the titrimetric analysis comprises detecting, based on a sign of the charge density in a measuring cell, whether an excess or a deficit of the flocculating agent is present, (See paragraphs [0105]-[0114]), and automatically selecting a suitable cationic or anionic titrant based on the detected sign, (See paragraph [0099]-[0101]; cationic coagulant (titrant) selected when setpoint range is exceeded).
but does not disclose:
d. at the respective measurement time points (N), determining a required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of the flocculating agent to be added in order to guarantee optimize optimal flocculation based, based quantitatively proportional control or load-proportional control, wherein for quantitatively proportional control the required quantity (Dp,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according to Dp,N = Dp,A + (dEqz -dEqM)/dEqp ,wherein Dp,A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N, wherein for load-proportional control the required quantity (D'p,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according toD'p,N = D'p,A + ((dEqz - dEqM)/dEqp)/fTSs ,wherein D'p.A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N and fTSs is the solid content of the suspension; and e. following the respective measurement time points (N), adding to the suspension the required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of flocculating agent to be added, wherein the flocculating agent comprises a charged polymer prepared in an aqueous batch solution, and wherein the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) is determined at a plurality of time points during the method, previously determined values of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being replaced by prevailing determined values, and the respective prevailing determined value of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being used for calculating the required quantity (Dp.N, D'p.N) of the flocculating agent to be added.
Jorden discloses a method, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0379]-[0382], Jorden), at the respective measurement time points (N), determining a required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of the flocculating agent to be added in order to guarantee optimize optimal flocculation, (See paragraph [0371]-[0376], Jorden), based quantitatively proportional control or load-proportional control, (See paragraph [0370], Jorden), wherein for quantitatively proportional control the required quantity (Dp,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according to Dp,N = Dp,A + (dEqz -dEqM)/dEqp , wherein Dp,A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N, (See paragraph [0390]-[[0396]; demand or amount of coagulant Dd is determined (equivalent to Dp,N) based on the functional charge density in which Dd/Do is calculated (equivalent to dEqz-deqM/dEqp) and a dose (Dp,A) is added to bring to the level Dd desired; and/or See paragraph [0422]-[0428], Jorden), wherein for load-proportional control the required quantity (D'p,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according toD'p,N = D'p,A + ((dEqz - dEqM)/dEqp)/fTSs , wherein D'p.A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N and fTSs is the solid content of the suspension; and e. following the respective measurement time points (N), adding to the suspension the required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of flocculating agent to be added, (this limitation is optional based on the phrasing above), wherein the flocculating agent comprises a charged polymer prepared in an aqueous batch solution, and wherein the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) is determined at a plurality of time points during the method, previously determined values of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being replaced by prevailing determined values, and the respective prevailing determined value of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being used for calculating the required quantity (Dp.N, D'p.N) of the flocculating agent to be added, (See Figures 31-33, either HMS addition 5200 or Polymer Coagulant Dosage 5300, See paragraphs [0371]-[0376] and [0390]-[0410], Jorden).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Pembroke by incorporating d. at the respective measurement time points (N), determining a required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of the flocculating agent to be added in order to guarantee optimize optimal flocculation based, based quantitatively proportional control or load-proportional control, wherein for quantitatively proportional control the required quantity (Dp,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according to Dp,N = Dp,A + (dEqz -dEqM)/dEqp ,wherein Dp,A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N, wherein for load-proportional control the required quantity (D'p,N) at the respective measurement time point (N) is calculated according toD'p,N = D'p,A + ((dEqz - dEqM)/dEqp)/fTSs ,wherein D'p.A is the quantity to be added at a time point A immediately before the time point N and fTSs is the solid content of the suspension; and e. following the respective measurement time points (N), adding to the suspension the required quantity (Dp,n,D’n,N) of flocculating agent to be added wherein the flocculating agent comprises a charged polymer prepared in an aqueous batch solution, and wherein the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) is determined at a plurality of time points during the method, previously determined values of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being replaced by prevailing determined values, and the respective prevailing determined value of the flocculating agent charge density (dEqp) being used for calculating the required quantity (Dp.N, D'p.N) of the flocculating agent to be added as in Jorden for “determining the optimal acid-base dosage….to optime the pH of the raw water….determining the optimal dosage of hydrolyzing metal salt” and “determining the optimal dosage of polymer coagulant”, (See paragraph [0376], Jorden), because “the optimum combination of coagulant species…may vary with location, raw water quality, treatment quality goals, plant separation processing equipment, and with time for a given situation”, (See paragraph [0057], Jorden).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights