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
The Amendment filed 06MAY2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09JAN2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 06MAY2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that KUMAR does not teach LECA. The argument is persuasive.
The applicant argues that LECA provides a surprising result, because it allows the device to be effectively used as a fine filter in conjunction with a coarse filter. The applicant may assert allegations of unexpected results (see MPEP 716.02) via an Affidavit or Declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.132 (MPEP 716). Note that to be of probative value, any objective evidence of non-obviousness should be supported by actual proof and that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence (MPEP 716.01(c)). Furthermore, any secondary evidence must be related to the claimed invention (MPEP 716.01(b)). No discussion of a fine filter in conjunction with a coarse filter is in the specification nor is it in the claims.
See new rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 line(s) 22 sets forth the limitation “light-expanding clay aggregate (LECA)”, which should be corrected to - - light expanded clay aggregate (LECA) - -
Claim 2 line(s) 26 sets forth the limitation “light-expanding clay aggregate (LECA)”, which should be corrected to - - light expanded clay aggregate (LECA) - -
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, please clarify the claim scope, e.g. - - the growing medium further comprises fractured rocks […] or a combination thereof. - -
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7-8,13,15-17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (WO 2004087584) in view of RENNESUND (US 20020179534).
Regarding claim 1, KUMAR teaches system and method for the treatment of wastewater using plants (title, Figs.) including a phyto-mediated wastewater treatment bioreactor (PWBR) comprising:
a solid growing medium (e.g. sand; P4/L23-25);
a serpentine flow path (see flow arrows of Fig. 2; P5/L21-22) comprising a plurality of U-turns, disposed in the growing medium (Fig. 1 #1-3);
an influent port (Fig. 1 #12) fluidly coupled to the flow path;
an effluent port (Fig. 1 #14) fluidly coupled to the flow path and disposed opposite to the influent port; and,
a plurality of plants (Fig. 1 #4; P9/L28-P10/L1) planted in the growing medium;
wherein the device is capable of breaking down the contaminants via microorganisms and plant roots (P5/L33-34; P7/L23-27; P9/L5-8).
While KUMAR does not teach the effluent port is disposed at an equal height to the influent port, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the height of the effluent port is an obvious engineering design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Further, the inlet/outlet height has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
KUMAR does not teach light expanded clay aggregate (LECA). However, RENNESUND teaches light expanded clay aggregates for phosphorus removal (title, Figs.) which not only removes phosphorous, but also provides good hydraulic properties as well (par. [0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of KUMAR to include LECA as a growing medium in order to provide for phosphorus removal and good hydraulic properties. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 2,15, KUMAR teaches system and method for the treatment of wastewater using plants (title, Figs.) including a phyto-mediated wastewater treatment bioreactor (PWBR) comprising:
a) a container (side walls constructed out of concrete or brick work with plaster; Fig. 1 #11; P9/L2-3) having an upstream end (near Fig. 1 #12) and a downstream end (near Fig. 1 #14);
b) an influent port (Fig. 1 #12) fluidly coupled to the container at the upstream end;
c) an effluent port (Fig. 1 #14) fluidly coupled to the container at the downstream end opposite the influent port;
d) a plurality of flow guides (Fig. 1 #8) disposed in the container, the flow guides dividing the container into a plurality of fluidly connected container sections arranged in a serpentine flow path comprising a plurality of U-turns (see flow arrows of Fig. 2; P5/L5-7; 21-22; P9/L3);
e) a solid growing medium (e.g. sand; P4/L23-25) disposed in the container sections such that the serpentine flow path is defined in the growing medium (Fig. 1 #1-3); and
f) a plurality of plant units (Fig. 1 #4; P9/L28-P10/L1) planted in the growing medium;
wherein the device is capable of breaking down the contaminants via microorganisms and plant roots (P5/L33-34; P7/L23-27; P9/L5-8).
While KUMAR does not teach the effluent port is disposed at an equal height to the influent port, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the height of the effluent port is an obvious engineering design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Further, the inlet/outlet height has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
KUMAR does not teach light expanded clay aggregate (LECA). However, RENNESUND teaches light expanded clay aggregates for phosphorus removal (title, Figs.) which not only removes phosphorous, but also provides good hydraulic properties as well (par. [0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of KUMAR to include LECA as a growing medium in order to provide for phosphorus removal and good hydraulic properties. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 4, KUMAR teaches the flow guides are parallel to each other (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 5,7, KUMAR teaches the flow guides are e.g. straight baffles. (P5/L6; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, KUMAR teaches the flow guides are oriented radially relative to an axis (see e.g. dashed line of Fig. 2) extending from the upstream end to the downstream end (the baffles are perpendicular to the axis; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, KUMAR teaches the flow guides are e.g. solid. (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, KUMAR teaches the container is e.g. rectangular cubic, (Fig. 1; P12/L2).
Regarding claim 17, KUMAR teaches the wastewater is capable of making a single-pass through the PWBR (Fig. 1; P5/L10-11).
Regarding claim 20, KUMAR teaches e.g. flow rate is capable of being controlled (P8/L9-10).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (WO 2004087584) in view of RENNESUND (US 20020179534) and LASSOVSKY (US 8889006).
Regarding claim 9, KUMAR does not teach the flow guides are oriented axially relative to an axis extending from the upstream end to the downstream end. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the orientation of the baffles is an obvious engineering design choice and would be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure was significant.
This is especially obvious in view of LASSOVSKY, which teaches a system for wastewater treatment using aquatic plants (title, Figs.) including flow guides (Fig. 4 #110) are oriented axially relative to an axis (e.g. running left to right; Fig. 4) extending from the upstream end to the downstream end thus providing a zigzag flow (C10/L6-10).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (WO 2004087584) in view of RENNESUND (US 20020179534) and ROONEY (US 4282102).
Regarding claim 12, KUMAR does not teach the flow guides comprise a polymer or metal material. However, ROONEY teaches activated sludge wastewater treatment having suspended inert media for biota growth (title, Figs.) comprising a metal baffle (Fig. 1 #36) that provides an erosion and corrosion resistant surface (C5/L50-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flow guides of KUMAR to be made of metal to provide an erosion and corrosion resistant surface as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (WO 2004087584) in view of RENNESUND (US 20020179534) and BUSSARD (US 3873445).
Regarding claim 14, KUMAR does not teach the flow guides comprise wire netting. However, BUSSARD teaches apparatus for reducing toilet effluents to useable liquids (title, Figs.) comprising a mesh filter baffle (e.g. Figs. 2,4 #19) to permit the free flow of liquids therethrough but generally confining growth solids within until sufficiently digested (C3/L2-4; C4/L48-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flow guides of KUMAR with a mesh filter to allow liquid to flow but not solids until sufficiently digested as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (WO 2004087584) in view of RENNESUND (US 20020179534) and AUSTIN (US 20050218071).
Regarding claims 18-19, KUMAR does not teach the wastewater is capable of being recirculated through the PWBR. However, AUSTIN teaches an integrated tidal wastewater treatment system and method (title, Figs.) including a phyto-mediated wastewater treatment bioreactor (PWBR) comprising:
a) container (Fig. 4 #10’) having an upstream end (at Fig. 4 #11a) and a downstream end (at Fig. 4 #11e);
b) an influent port (Fig. 1 #14 of Fig. 4 #11a) fluidly coupled to the container at the upstream end;
c) an effluent port (Fig. 1 #31 of Fig. 4 #11e) fluidly coupled to the container at the downstream end opposite the influent port;
d) a plurality of flow guides (walls defining 11a-e and 12a-d of Fig. 4) disposed in the container, the flow guides dividing the container into a plurality of fluidly connected container sections;
e) a growing medium (Fig. 1 #90) disposed in the container sections; and
f) a plurality of plant units (Fig. 1 #19) planted in the growing medium;
wherein the device is capable of breaking down the contaminants (via e.g. bioremediation; par. [0003]); and,
the wastewater is capable of being recirculated through the PWBR (Fig. 4 “Q recycle”) via a pump (Fig. 4 “P”), which provides for a more effective removal of contaminants (par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of KUMAR to include recycle streams as taught by AUSTIN for the purpose of providing for a more effective removal of contaminants. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights