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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are pending:
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected.
Claims 4-6 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 08/12/2024 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome §112 rejections but do not overcome claim objections and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 07/01/2024.
Newly claim 9 is withdrawn in light of remarks.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 08/12/2024 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
The Examiner acknowledges that Phattaranawik does not teach the bifurcated outlet that extends from the retaining screen, and that Phattaranawik does not include the first and second valves that are incorporated into the bifurcated outlet. Office Action, pg. 7.
To address these deficiencies, the Examiner looks to Malone. The Examiner notes that Malone teaches a floating hourglass biofilter and includes an outlet 7 that extends from a retaining screen 18.
Then the Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the outlet and screen of Phattaranawik by
extending said outlet from the screen as disclosed by Malone because it is beneficial for preventing the media from escaping the filtration chamber, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the filtration process.
Office Action, pg. 7. This motivation for modifying Phattaranawik is legally insufficient. Respectfully, it does not have the rational technical underpinnings required by KSR. First, Phattaranawik already incorporates a retaining screen 6 "for preventing the media from escaping the filter chamber". See Figure 1 of Phattaranawik. Indeed, Phattaranawik has a lower screen 6 and an upper screen 6. Biofilm media 52 lies between the two screens. Phattaranawik is an upflow reactor which of course means that the wastewater is flowing upwardly through the reactor and through the biofilm media 52 therein. The upper screen 6 during the wastewater treatment process prevents the biofilm media 52 from escaping the tank through outlet 22. The proposed modification of Phattaranawik would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as redundant since the upper screen 6 already performs the function that underlies the alleged motivation. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding "no reason to combine" two devices which "independently accomplish similar functions"); South-Tek Sys., LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Sols., LLC., 748 F.App'x.1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (no motivation when reference "already included" functionality "that served [the] purpose" introduced by the secondary reference).
This alone is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Even so, the modification discussed above still does not meet the first and second valve limitations in claim 1. The Examiner turns the obviousness analysis to Zhao. The Examiner notes that Zhao teaches a process for removing ammonium from a wastewater stream and that Zhao includes two valves. The Examiner points to valves 107 and 108 in Figure 2. Office Action, pg. 7. The Examiner then concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art...to modify the bifurcated outlet of Phattaranawik by incorporating first and second control valves in the bifurcated outlet as disclosed by Zhao because it aids in controlling the flow of water (Zhao, see 35) which is a desirable feature in Phattaranawik... Office Action, pp. 7 & 8. Respectfully, this motivation is based entirely on hindsight, is conclusionary and unsupported. Also, it is based on a misconception of Phattaranawik as modified by Malone. In proposing to utilize Zhao, the Examiner states that it would be obvious "to modify the bifurcated outlet of Phattaranawik". However, Phattaranawik does not include a "bifurcated outlet". This is because the Examiner acknowledges at pg. 7 of the Office Action that Phattaranawik does not teach "the bifurcated outlet". The Examiner does modify Phattaranawik based on Malone, but that modification simply related to "extending said outlet of Phattaranawik from the screen as disclosed by Malone". The modification based on Malone does not suggest a "bifurcated10 of
outlet". For this reason, the proposed modification based on Zhao fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In any event, the modification of Phattaranawik based on Zhao is based on hindsight. Zhao simply shows two valves and two separate outlets 108 and 107 where one valve controls the discharge from tank 102 while the other valve allows a portion of the wastewater therein to be recycled. There is nothing here to suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zhao into Phattaranawik. Furthermore, the motivation of "it aids in controlling the flow of the water" is highly generalized and insufficient as a motivation. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why incorporating two valves would actually aid in controlling the flow of water in Phattaranawik.
The argument pertaining to the combination of Phattaranawik and Malone is not persuasive because based on the teachings of Malone, the upper screen can be a separate structure (screen 18 in an alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 5 of Malone) for small-scale biofilters (Malone, see C7/L5-15) or the outlet can be extended from the screen (screen 18 in a first embodiment shown in Fig. 1 of Malone) for large-scale biofilters (Malone, see C4/L35-50). The screens in Fig. 5 of Malone are arranged similarly to the screens of Phattaranawik and it would have been obvious based on the teachings of Malone that the screens can be rearranged at different depths (heights) and having an outlet extended thereform said screen in order to adapt to large-scale vs small-scale applications and to achieve predictable result of retaining and trapping unwanted particles and other matter from the water (Malone, see C6/L10-22). Therefore, the combination of Phattaranawik and Malone teaches a retaining screen having a bifurcated outlet extending therefrom. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The argument pertaining to the combination of Phattaranawik and Zhao is not persuasive because control valves are very well-known and conventional in the art to control the amount of flow. Additionally, Phattaranawik suggests that said devices are desirable because a varied percentage of effluent can be recycled to the inlet for further treatment (Phattaranawik, see ¶67).
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “deammonification reactor for removing ammonium from wastewater and configured to operate in one mode as a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) or operate in a second mode as an integrated fixed film activated sludge sequencing batch reactor (IFAS SBR), the deammonification reactor comprising: a single deammonification tank; an aeration grid disposed in a bottom portion of the tank; wherein the deammonification tank is configured to contain biofilm carriers having biomass supported thereon; the single tank including a retaining screen for discharging treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor and for retaining the biofilm carriers in the tank and preventing the biofilm carriers from being discharged with treated wastewater from the tank; the retaining screen having a bifurcated outlet extending therefrom through which treated wastewater flows after passing through the retaining screen; first and second flow control valves incorporated into the bifurcated outlet and configured to control whether the deammonification reactor is operating in an MBBR mode or an IFAS SBR mode; the first and second valves in the bifurcated outlet configured to function as follows: when the first valve is open and the second valve is closed, the deammonification reactor functions as a continuous flow MBBR; when the first valve is closed and the second valve is open, the deammonification reactor functions as a non-continuous IFAS SBR; wherein the retaining screen and the bifurcated outlet extending therefrom is fixed relative to the tank; and wherein when the first valve is closed and the second valve is open, the retaining screen and at least a portion of the bifurcated outlet are configured as a decanter for decanting treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor”; consider rephrasing to – deammonification reactor for removing ammonium from wastewater and configured to operate in one mode as a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) or operate in a second mode as an integrated fixed film activated sludge sequencing batch reactor (IFAS SBR), the deammonification reactor comprising: a single deammonification tank; an aeration grid disposed in a bottom portion of the single deammonification tank; wherein the single deammonification tank is configured to contain biofilm carriers having biomass supported thereon; the single deammonification tank including a retaining screen for discharging treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor and for retaining the biofilm carriers in the single deammonification tank and preventing the biofilm carriers from being discharged with treated wastewater from the single deammonification tank; the retaining screen having a bifurcated outlet extending therefrom through which treated wastewater flows after passing through the retaining screen; first and second flow control valves incorporated into the bifurcated outlet and configured to control whether the deammonification reactor is operating in an MBBR mode or an IFAS SBR mode; the first and second flow control valves in the bifurcated outlet configured to function as follows: when the first flow control valve is open and the second flow control valve is closed, the deammonification reactor functions as a continuous flow MBBR; when the first flow control valve is closed and the second flow control valve is open, the deammonification reactor functions as a non-continuous IFAS SBR; wherein the retaining screen and the bifurcated outlet extending therefrom is fixed relative to the single deammonification tank; and wherein when the first flow control valve is closed and the second flow control valve is open, the retaining screen and at least a portion of the bifurcated outlet are configured as a decanter for decanting treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor – for clarity and consistency with other claim language. Dependent claim 2 recites “the single tank” and claim 3 recites “the tank” therefore objected for similar reasoning.
Dependent claims are hereby objected due to dependency from objected claim 1. 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:
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phattaranawik (US 2012/0006744) in view of Malone (USPN 5,232,586) and further in view of Zhao (US 2013/0264280).
Regarding claim 1, Phattaranawik teaches a deammonification reactor (reactor tank 0) for removing ammonium from wastewater (this limitation is recited as an intended use) and configured to operate in one mode as a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) or operate in a second mode as an integrated fixed film activated sludge sequencing batch reactor (IFAS SBR) (the reactor of Phattaranawik is capable of performing the claimed function, see ¶69), the deammonification reactor comprising: a single deammonification tank (i.e. reactor tank 0); an aeration grid (bubble diffusion device 7; bubbling of air, see ¶64) disposed in a bottom portion of the tank (see Fig. 1); wherein the deammonification tank (i.e. reactor tank 0) is configured to contain biofilm carriers having biomass supported thereon (the reactor tank 0 is capable of performing the claimed function, see Fig. 1) (the biofilm carriers having biomass is only functionally recited therefore not considered part of the reactor structure); the single tank (i.e. reactor tank 0) including a retaining screen (corresponds to upper screen 6) for discharging treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor and for retaining the biofilm carriers in the tank and preventing the biofilm carriers from being discharged with treated wastewater from the tank (see Fig. 1); the retaining screen (i.e. upper screen 6)…a bifurcated outlet (recycle line 8 and effluent outlet 22)…through which treated wastewater flows after passing through the retaining screen (see Fig. 1); …the deammonification reactor functions as a continuous flow MBBR (continuous mode, see ¶69; the reactor of Phattaranawik is capable of performing the claimed function); …the deammonification reactor functions as a non-continuous IFAS SBR (batch mode, see ¶69; the reactor is capable of performing the claimed function); wherein the retaining screen and the bifurcated outlet …is fixed relative to the tank (see Fig. 1); and …the retaining screen and at least a portion of the bifurcated outlet are configured as a decanter for decanting treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor (the resulting effluent from the reactor will have a lower total suspend solid, see ¶76; the decanting function would occur independent of any valves/flow control means).
While first and second flow control valves are not explicitly disclosed, it is desirable in Phattaranawik to vary the percentage of effluent to be recycled (see ¶67).
With respect to the limitation “the first and second valves in the bifurcated outlet configured to function as follows: when the first valve is open and the second valve is closed, the deammonification reactor functions as a continuous flow MBBR; when the first valve is closed and the second valve is open, the deammonification reactor functions as a non-continuous IFAS SBR; and wherein when the first valve is closed and the second valve is open, the retaining screen and at least a portion of the bifurcated outlet are configured as a decanter for decanting treated wastewater from the deammonification reactor”, the mode of operating the valve relates to the method of using the reactor. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Note also MPEP 2114 II.
Phattaranawik also does not teach the bifurcated outlet extended therefrom the retaining screen; and the first and second valves in the bifurcated outlet.
In a related field of endeavor, Malone teaches floating hourglass biofilter (see ABS) comprising an outlet (outlet line 7) extended therefrom a retaining screen (upper screen 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlet and screen of Phattaranawik by extending said outlet from the screen as disclosed by Malone because it is beneficial for preventing the media from escaping the filtration chamber thereby maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the filtration process.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a process for removing ammonium from a wastewater stream (see ABS) comprising first and second valves (corresponds to valves in outlet lines 107 and 108) in a bifurcated outlet (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bifurcated outlet of Phattaranawik by incorporating first and second control valves in the bifurcated outlet as disclosed by Zhao because it aids in controlling the flow of the water (Zhao, see ¶35) which is a desirable feature in Phattaranawik (Phattaranawik , see ¶67). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 2, Phattaranawik, Malone and Zhao teach the deammonification reactor of claim 1 wherein the single tank deammonification reactor is configured to operate as an IFAS SBR (i.e. batch mode) in the absence of a downstream clarifier (the reactor of Phattaranawik as modified by is capable of performing the claimed function, see ¶69 and Fig. 1; additionally, a downstream clarifier is not required in Phattaranawik therefore the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 3, Phattaranawik, Malone and Zhao teach the deammonification reactor of claim 1 wherein the biofilm carriers (carriers/biofilm media 52) have a specific gravity of 1 or less and are configured to float in the wastewater contained in the tank (the carriers can be made of HDPE, see ¶71; said material inherently has a density less than 1 and inherently floats due to said density).
Regarding claim 7, Phattaranawik, Malone and Zhao teach the deammonification reactor of claim 1.
Phattaranawik and Malone do not teach an effluent tank disposed adjacent the single deammonification tank and operatively connected to said first flow control valve incorporated into the bifurcated outlet such that in an MBBR mode treated wastewater flows from the single deammonification tank, through the retaining screen and through the first flow control valve into the effluent tank.
Zhao further discloses an effluent tank (secondary clarifier 152) disposed adjacent the deammonification tank (IFAS 102) and operatively connected to said first flow control valve (corresponds to valve on outlet line 108) such that treated wastewater flows from the deammonification tank, through the first flow control valve into the effluent tank (outlet lines 108 are operatively connected to a manifold line 112 that directs the treated secondary effluent into line 64, see ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modify the system of Phattaranawik by incorporating an effluent tank adjacent the deammonification tank and operatively connected to the first control valve such that treated wastewater flows from the deammonification tank, through the first flow control valve into the effluent tank as disclosed by Zhao because it aids in further processing the effluent by settling out sludge (Zhao, see ¶61).
The combination of Phattaranawik, Malone and Zhao teaches “an effluent tank disposed adjacent the single deammonification tank and operatively connected to said first flow control valve incorporated into the bifurcated outlet such that in an MBBR mode treated wastewater flows from the single deammonification tank, through the retaining screen and through the first flow control valve into the effluent tank”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phattaranawik (US 2012/0006744) in view of Malone (USPN 5,232,586) in view of Zhao (US 2013/0264280) and further in view of Nightingale (US 2006/0011553).
Regarding claim 8, Phattaranawik, Malone and Zhao teach the deammonification reactor of claim 1.
Phattaranawik does not particularly limit the screen(s) to a particularly height within the tank.
Malone further discloses the upper screen 18 which has a depth 21 sufficient to provide adequate suspended solids filtration of the particular waste being treated as well as to provide adequate media surface area for biological treatment of the waste flowing through the media pack 9 (Malone, see C4/L65-C5/L5).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the retaining screen is disposed generally midway the height of the single deammonification tank.
In a related field of endeavor, Nightingale teaches a water purification system and method (see ABS) comprising a screen 52 located about the mid height of the tank 46 (see ¶51).
It is noted that as for the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of criticality has been demonstrated for the retaining screen disposed generally midway the height of the single deammonification tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the screen of Phattaranawik (as modified by Malone) by arranging said screen midway in the reactor as disclosed by Nigtingale because doing so achieves the predictable result of stopping filter media from migrating from the filter tank into the lower portion (Nightingale, see ¶51) which aids in effective filtration (Nigtingale, see ¶64).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571) 270-3960. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778
