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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2019 128 677.8, filed on 10/23/2019.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote et al (US Patent No. 5932099 A) hereinafter Cote, in view of Smith et al (US Patent No. 20070209999 A1) hereinafter Smith, in view of Gaid et al (US Patent Application No. 20160318777 A1) hereinafter Gaid.
Regarding Claim 1, Cote teaches a plant for the biological treatment of water (i.e., A purification method for purifying contaminated water; Abstract) comprising at least one biological reactor (i.e., purification tank; Fig. 1, #7; Abstract) provided with injection means for injecting oxygenated gas (i.e., aerating the membrane module by inflow of air from below; Fig. 1, #9; Abstract), at least one separation membrane immersed in said reactor (i.e., membrane module disposed in purification tank; Fig. 1, #11; Abstract), and addition means for adding at least one pulverulent material (i.e., adding adsorption agent to the purification tank at a raw side; Fig. 1, #10; Abstract) where the pulverulent material may be powdered activated carbon (PAC) (i.e., adsorption agent comprising powdered activated carbon; Col. 2 Lines, 56-67 – Col. 3, Lines 1-4) with the above steps all occurring in one biological reactor (Fig. 1; Abstract) with an objective of the invention to include one or more filtration membranes in a water treatment plant while maintaining high treatment flow rates (Col. 2, Lines 27-29; Col. 3, Lines 60-65). Cote further teaches that the biological reactor is fitted with a sludge drainage means (Fig. 1, #14) for the purpose of the management of sludge age in the reactor (i.e., wherein adding the adsorption agent comprises discharging a portion of the adsorption agent from outside of the purification tank for controlling a total solids in the purification tank; Col. 7, Lines 46-53). Cote further teaches that 10 g/L of powdered carbon is maintained in the bioreactor at equilibrium (Col. 8, Lines 43-52).
Cote does not explicitly teach a method for purifying biologically treated water comprising biologically treating the contaminated water and after biologically treating the contaminated water, filtering the contaminated water in a separate purification tank and discontinuously discharging a portion of the adsorption agent.
However, Smith teaches that wastewater is screened (Fig. 1, #110) and then sent to a bioreactor (i.e., biologically treating the contaminated water; Fig. 1, #120) after which the wastewater is sent to a separator (Fig. 1, #130) which is a membrane bioreactor (i.e., after biologically treating the contaminated water, filtering the contaminated water in a separate purification tank; a method for purifying biologically treated water; Paragraphs 0055-0058) and that sludge containing spent activated carbon may be intermittently removed from a membrane bioreactor (i.e., wherein adding the adsorption agent comprises discontinuously discharging a portion of the adsorption agent; Paragraph 0054). Smith further teaches that the advantage of utilizing a membrane bioreactor downstream of a bioreactor is that the membrane bioreactor does not require a settling polymer typically used in clarifiers and will eliminate the costs associated with purchasing and storing the polymer (Paragraph 0033).
Smith is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a bioreactor system and a method for treating wastewater (Paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane bioreactor as taught by Cote to be downstream of a bioreactor and to discharge sludge as taught by Smith because the ordering of steps would eliminate the use of a clarifier and polymer and would reduce costs associated with polymer purchasing and storage and discharging sludge would control the sludge age of the reactor.
Cote in view of Smith does not teach wherein, prior to adding the adsorption agent, a concentration of the adsorption agent is adjusted outside of the purification tank and independent of the purification tank and does not explicitly teach such that the total solids in the purification tank is between 2 g/l and 6.5 g/l.
However, Gaid teaches a pre-contact tank distinct from the water treatment housing the membrane filtration means such that a pump sends the mixture of water and powder activated carbon (PAC) from the pre-contact tank to the water treatment tank by means of a pipe (Paragraph 0106) for the purpose of homogenizing the distribution of the adsorbent powdery materials within the reactor and preventing the material from adhering to the filtration membranes (Paragraph 0068). Gaid further teaches the use of a concentration of 0.1 g/l to 5 g/l of absorbent powdery material in a membrane reactor (i.e., such that the total solids in the purification tank is between 2 g/l and 6.5 g/l; Abstract and Paragraph 0082).
Gaid is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the treatment of water implementing a membrane reactor (Paragraphs 0001-0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the addition means for adding at least one pulverulent material as made obvious by Cote in view of Smith with the pre-contact tank taught by Gaid because the pre-contact tank would homogenize the distribution of the powder activated carbon in the membrane bioreactor and prevent the powder activated carbon from adhering to the membrane.
Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach the explicit range of 2 g/l and 6.5 g/l of total solids in the purification tank in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the total solids range that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the total solids ranges made obvious by Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid.
Regarding Claim 2, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches the plant for biological treatment of water (Abstract), run in the configuration shown in Figure 1 (Col. 8, Lines 9-20) with one membrane module (Fig. 1, #11), with a pre-treatment consisting of a coagulation/flocculation unit (Fig. 1, #3) and a clarifier for sedimentation (Fig. 1, #4) that feeds the reactor (Fig. 1, #7) in that order (i.e., the purification tank to be flowed through by the contaminated water and supplying the contaminated water from a sedimentation tank, to the one membrane module in the purification tank, without flowing through another membrane module, and introducing the water purified by the purification method into a river, lake or the ocean from the purification tank, without flowing through another membrane module; Col. 6, Lines 42-63) with no other membrane module mentioned. The plant for biological treatment of water would discharge into a river lake or the ocean if part of a water treatment plant (Col. 2, Lines 27-29; Col. 3, Lines 60-65; Col. 9, Lines 26-34).
Regarding Claim 9, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches that the means of mixing the pulverulent materials, consisting of a bubble mixer, where PAC, among other reactive powders, is added to water, all of which can be used to add to the water transiting through the reactor (i.e., mixing, suspending or dissolving the adsorption agent in water prior to adding the adsorption agent; Fig. 1, #10; Col. 6, Lines 64-67 to Col. 7, Lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches adding precipitation and/or flocculation agents (Fig. 1, #5; Col. 6, Lines 42-49).
Regarding Claim 11, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 10. Cote further teaches the use of coagulation agents such as aluminum polychloride, aluminum sulfate, and ferric chloride (i.e., wherein the precipitation and/or flocculation agents are iron salts or aluminum salts; Col. 6, Lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 12, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches that the membrane module is for microfiltration (Fig. 1, #11; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches that the membrane module is for ultrafiltration (Fig. 1, #11; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote further teaches that the membrane consists of outer pressure hollow fibres (i.e., selecting the membrane module from the group consisting of a flat membrane module and a hollow fiber membrane module; Col. 6, Lines 54-63).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Despen et al (US Patent No. 20150239743 A1) hereinafter Despen.
Regarding Claim 3, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach producing the powdered activated carbon from wood and/or peat.
However, Despen teaches that the biomass feedstock is selected from a group consisting of softwood chips, hardwood chips, tree branches, and tree stumps among other feedstocks (Page 3, Paragraph 0037) because the feedstock is renewable (Page 3, Paragraph 0036).
Despen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to highly mesoporous activated carbon products (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use wood as for producing powdered activated carbon as taught by Despen as the feedstock of powdered activated carbon for the plant for biological treatment of water made obvious by Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid because the feedstock would be renewable.
Regarding Claim 4, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach selecting a nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon to be between 1 µm and 150 µm.
However, Despen teaches that the average particle size of the biogenic activated carbon is about 10 µm (i.e., nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon to be between 1 µm and 150 µm; Page 9, Paragraph 0155). Biogenic activated carbon has the benefit of controlling pollutants the same as or better than traditional activated carbon products (Page 11, Paragraph 0199).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biogenic activated carbon taught by Despen because it would have the same or better ability to control pollutants as traditional activated carbon products with a smaller particle size than traditional activated carbon products.
Regarding Claim 5, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid in view of Despen makes obvious the purification method of Claim 4. Despen further teaches that the average particle size of the biogenic activated carbon is about 10 µm (i.e., nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon is selected to be between 1 µm and 50 µm; Page 9, Paragraph 0155).
Regarding Claim 6, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach selecting an iodine number of the powdered activated carbon to be greater than 900 mg/g.
However, Despen teaches iodine numbers for activated carbon products produced by the disclosure to include about 1200 because the Iodine Number measures the degree of activation of the carbon (i.e., selecting an iodine number of the powdered activated carbon to be greater than 900 mg/g; Page 11, Paragraph 0203).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biogenic activated carbon taught by Despen because it would have the same or better ability to control pollutants as traditional activated carbon products with a higher Iodine Number and thus a greater degree of activation than traditional activated carbon products.
Regarding Claim 7, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid in view of Despen makes obvious the purification method of Claim 6. Despen further teaches iodine numbers for activated carbon products produced by the disclosure to include about 1200 (i.e., wherein the iodine number of the powdered activated carbon is selected to be greater than 1,000 mg/g; Page 11, Paragraph 0203).
Regarding Claim 8, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach selecting an inner surface area of the powdered activated carbon to be greater than 800 m2/g determined according to the BET method.
However, Despen teaches that the activated carbon products are characterized by having a BET surface area of at least 800 m2/g (i.e., selecting an inner surface area of the powdered activated carbon to be greater than 800 m2/g determined according to the BET method; Abstract) with the surface area generally correlating to adsorption capacity (Page 11, Paragraph 0202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biogenic activated carbon taught by Despen because it would have the same or better ability to control pollutants as traditional activated carbon products with a larger BET surface area and a greater adsorption capacity than traditional activated carbon products.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takabatake et al (US Patent No. 20100224541 A1) hereinafter Takabatake.
Regarding Claim 15, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach selecting the purification tank from the group consisting of a concrete tank or a container.
However, Takabatake teaches that a treatment tank for a submerged membrane separation apparatus may be a concrete tank, choosing concrete for its ability to store treated membrane filtration liquids such as waste water and an activated sludge mixture liquid (i.e., selecting the purification tank from the group consisting of a concrete tank; Fig. 7, #8; Page 6, Paragraph 0109).
Takabatake is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a submerged membrane apparatus that carries out a filtration treatment on polluted water such as industrial wastewater, by using a membrane (Page 1, Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the concrete tank taught by Takabatake for the biological reactor taught by Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid because the concrete tank would be able to store the membrane filtration liquids.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zha et al (International Patent Application No. WO 9828066 A1) hereinafter Zha.
Regarding Claim 17, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid makes obvious the purification method of claim 1. Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid does not teach wherein filtering the contaminated water comprises at least a filtration cycle, a relaxation cycle, and a backwashing cycle.
However, Zha teaches a membrane module (Fig. 5, #4) located in a tank (Fig. 5, #15) which utilizes suction to produce filtrate and where a cycle of operation involves running suction for 15 minutes (i.e., a filtration cycle), stopped, then aeration starts for 2 minutes and 15 seconds (i.e., a relaxation cycle), with a period of backwash (i.e., a backwashing cycle) occurring for 15 seconds after the first minute of aeration and after the aeration cycle stops, the suction is started again for the purpose of removing solids clogged within the membrane pores (Page 9, Lines 16-25).
Zha is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method for removing fouling materials from the surface of a porous membranes by utilizing air bubbles (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plant for the biological treatment of water as made obvious by Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid with the membrane cleaning method as taught by Zha because the cleaning method would remove solids clogged within the membrane pores.
Regarding Claim 18, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid in view of Zha makes obvious the purification method of claim 17. Zha further teaches a membrane module (Fig. 5, #4) located in a tank (Fig. 5, #15) which utilizes suction to produce filtrate (i.e., wherein filtering the contaminated water comprises) and where a cycle of operation involves running suction for 15 minutes (i.e., the filtration cycle), stopped, then aeration starts for 2 minutes and 15 seconds, with a period of backwash occurring for 15 seconds after the first minute of aeration and after the aeration cycle stops, the suction is started again for the purpose of removing solids clogged within the membrane pores (Page 9, Lines 16-25). The full cycle becomes 15 minutes of suction (the filtration cycle), 1 minute of aeration (a first relaxation cycle following the filtration cycle), 15 seconds of backwashing (the backwashing cycle) and aeration, 1 minute of aeration (a second relaxation cycle following the backwashing cycle), and then filtration again.
Regarding Claim 19, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid in view of Zha makes obvious the purification method of claim 17. Zha further teaches a membrane module (Fig. 5, #4) located in a tank (Fig. 5, #15) which utilizes suction to produce filtrate and where a cycle of operation involves running suction for 15 minutes, stopped, then aeration starts for 2 minutes and 15 seconds (i.e., wherein during the relaxation cycle the membrane module is flushed with air without filtering the contaminated water), with a period of backwash occurring for 15 seconds after the first minute of aeration and after the aeration cycle stops, the suction is started again for the purpose of removing solids clogged within the membrane pores (Page 9, Lines 16-25).
Regarding Claim 20, Cote in view of Smith in view of Gaid in view of Zha makes obvious the purification method of claim 17. Zha further teaches a membrane module (Fig. 5, #4) located in a tank (Fig. 5, #15) which utilizes suction to produce filtrate (i.e., wherein filtering the contaminated water comprises) and where a cycle of operation involves running suction for 15 minutes (i.e., the filtration cycle), stopped, then aeration starts for 2 minutes and 15 seconds, with a period of backwash occurring for 15 seconds after the first minute of aeration and after the aeration cycle stops, the suction is started again for the purpose of removing solids clogged within the membrane pores (Page 9, Lines 16-25). The full cycle becomes 15 minutes of suction (the filtration cycle followed by), 1 minute of aeration (a first relaxation cycle followed by), 15 seconds of backwashing (the backwashing cycle followed by) and aeration, 1 minute of aeration (a second relaxation cycle following the backwashing cycle), and then filtration again.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 17 OCTOBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1 and 17 has been acknowledged.
In view of the IDS submission, the submitted IDS references on 25 APRIL 2025 and 17 OCTOBER 2025 have been considered.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 17, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have had Zha et al (International Patent Application No. WO 9828066 A1) hereinafter Zha move from claim 1 to claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 17 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Cote et al (US Patent No. 5932099 A) hereinafter Cote teaches draining the sludge from a membrane bioreactor to control sludge age, that Smith et al (US Patent No. 20070209999 A1) hereinafter Smith teaches intermittently removing sludge, and Gaid et al (US Patent Application No. 20160318777 A1) hereinafter Gaid teaches mixing in the powder activated carbon with water to adjust the concentration prior to adding it to the membrane bioreactor. Applicant specifically argues that the teaching of Smith and Cote involve removing sludge (and thus powder activated carbon) to control sludge age while Gaid pertains to adding powder activated carbon to a bioreactor and the teachings cannot be combined to result in the instant claim because they all teach different methods of controlling sludge (Arguments filed 17 OCTOBER 2025, Page 5 to Page 9, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the newly added limitation of controlling a total solids in the purification tank between 2 g/l and 6.5 g/l is not taught by the prior art (Arguments filed 17 OCTOBER 2025, Page 9, Paragraph 3).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 2-15 and 17-20, that claim 1 is allowable and so the dependent claims are also allowable (Arguments filed 17 OCTOBER 2025, Page 10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the previous claim 1 limitations, it is explained above how Cote may be modified with Smith and Gaid to result at the instant claim limitations. All three references discuss controlling the sludge within the reactor, which must involve both the addition of new carbon and the removal of existing carbon. Cote does not explicitly teach discontinuously removing sludge, but describes maintaining the sludge age which implies that sludge is added and removed to control the residence time of the sludge in the reactor. Smith is used to explicitly teach discontinuously removing sludge and Gaid is used to teach the pre-mixing of activated carbon prior to addition into the reactor. These concepts are not mutually exclusive and do not interfere with the controlling of sludge age as taught by Cote. Instead, these concepts simply describe alternatives for accomplishing the sludge age control within the reactor.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the new limitation of claim 1, Cote teaches that water is treated with a dose of 6.7 g/l of powdered carbon and 10 g/L of powdered carbon is maintained in the bioreactor at equilibrium (Col. 8, Lines 43-52) and Gaid teaches the use of a concentration of 0.1 g/l to 5 g/l of absorbent powdery material in a membrane reactor (i.e., such that the total solids in the purification tank is between 2 g/l and 6.5 g/l; Abstract and Paragraph 0082). It is clear that solids control is well known in bioreactors and the range of values described in the instant claim is taught in an overlapping range by Gaid, while Cote teaches starting at 6.7 g/l and controlling to 10 g/l, which is just outside of the instant claim range. Cote teaches that the specific powder activated carbon concentration was chosen in response to atrazine levels in the water. Therefore, the claim limitation is an overlapping range with the prior art and is also directed to a results effective variable based upon the particular contaminants that are being removed from the water.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claims 2-15 and 17-20, claim 1 is not allowable and so the dependent claims are also not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights