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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20NOV2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 20NOV2025 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 21AUG2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 20NOV2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. See new rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6083.01(m). Appropriate correction is required. For example:
1. (Currently Amended) A phyto-mediated wastewater treatment bioreactor (PWBR) (100) comprising:
a growing medium (140);
a serpentine flow path (135) comprising a plurality of U-turns, disposed in the growing medium (140);
an influent port (120) fluidly coupled to the serpentine flow path (135);
an effluent port (125) fluidly coupled to the serpentine flow path (135), disposed opposite to the influent port (120) at an equal height to the influent port (120); and
a plurality of plant units (150) planted in the growing medium (140);
wherein wastewater containing a first concentration of dissolved contaminants is introduced into the serpentine flow path (135) via the influent port (120);
wherein as the wastewater flows through the serpentine flow path (135), the plant units (150), microorganisms, or a combination thereof adhering to surfaces of the plant roots and growing medium assimilate, bioaccumulate and/or break the contaminants such that the wastewater exits through the effluent port (125) with a reduced concentration of contaminants;
wherein the growing medium (140) comprises a solid material.
Note the last paragraph of claim 2 is not indented.
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).
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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
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 ~11:00~15:00.
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