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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 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 newly found secondary reference Jorden et al., (“Jorden”, US 2019/0270655).
On page 9 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 The Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 rejections and objections to the claims and Specification.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that previous anticipatory reference Pembroke, (US 2017/0349460), does not disclose the presently amended claimed invention of independent Claims 1 & 15. The Examiner notes that while Pembroke does not disclose the claimed invention, a combination of newly found secondary reference Jorden et al., (“Jorden”, US 2019/0270655), with Pembroke reads upon the claimed invention as demonstrated in the prior art rejection section below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “guarantee optimize optimal flocculation” is grammatically improper. Deleting “optimize” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “based quantitatively proportional control or load…” on line 15-16 is grammatically improper. Inserting “on” between “based” and “quantitatively” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is is objected to because of the following informalities: “of flocculating agent” should be rewritten as “of the flocculating agent” on lines 29-30. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 & 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the streaming potential” on line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the time point N” on line 20 and on line 24. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the (respective) measurement time point N” previously recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the solid content” on line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the suspension charge density” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the streaming potential” on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the data” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the flocculating agent” on line 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the time point N” on line 25 and on line 29. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the (respective) measurement time point N” previously recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the solid content” on line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
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]);
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.
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).
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 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).
Claim 15 is directed to a system for carrying out a method of flocculating solid particles contained in a suspension, an apparatus type invention group.
Regarding Claim 15, Pembroke discloses for carrying out a method of flocculating solid particles contained in a suspension, comprising: a processing and control unit (See paragraphs [0055], [0057] & [0059]), a measuring cell, (See paragraphs [0055], [0057] & [0059]), and a dosing unit, (See paragraph [0058]), wherein the processing and control unit is connected to the measuring cell and the dosing unit in a signal engineering manner having the following features, (See paragraph [0057] & [0058]), the measuring cell is configured to determine the suspension charge density (dEqM) in the suspension at a plurality of measurement time points (N) by way of a titrimetric analysis with measurement of the streaming potential, (See paragraph [0055], [0098], [0099]), and to transfer the data obtained in this manner to the processing and control unit, (See paragraph [0093], [0105]-[0112]); - the processing and control unit is configured in order to: a. calculate, at the respective measurement time points (N), a quantity (Dp,N, D’p,N) of the flocculating agent to be added in order to guarantee optimal flocculation based on quantitatively proportional control or load-proportional control, and b. transmit a dosing signal based on the required quantity (Dp,N, D’p,N) of the flocculating agent to be added to the dosing unit, (See paragraphs [0057], [0058], [0105]-[0112]); and- the dosing unit is configured as a result of the dosing signal, to add to the suspension the required quantity (Dp,N, D’p,N) of the flocculating agent to be added, (See paragraphs [0057], [0058], [0105]-[0112]):
but does not disclose:
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.
Jorden discloses a system, (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, (this limitation is optional based on the phrasing above).
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 system of Pembroke by incorporating 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; 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
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 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