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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20
Cancelled Claims: 9 and 16
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 9 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 and the arguments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been remade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Cote, Smith, and Gaid do not teach all of the limitations of instant claim 1 and so instant claim 1 and claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 which depend upon instant claim 1 are now allowable (Arguments filed 06 APRIL 2026, Pages 5-9).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Instant claim 1 has been reevaluated in light of the arguments and after reviewing the extensive changes since the initial submission of instant claim 1. Further searching has found prior art that more closely matches the current form of instant claim 1, which can be seen in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Therefore, instant claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the biologically treated contaminated water” in lines 4-5 should read “a biologically treated contaminated water”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al US Patent Application No. US 20150329394 A1 (hereinafter Wang) in view of Omil et al European Patent Application No. EP 2960214 A1 (hereinafter Omil).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a process relating to wastewater treatment and to membrane bioreactors (i.e., a purification method for purifying biologically treated water comprising; Paragraph 0001)
wherein the membrane bioreactor (Fig. 2) which has an anoxic tank (Fig. 2, #44) and an aerobic tank (Fig. 2, #46) that make up the biological process section of the membrane bioreactor wherein wastewater (Fig. 2, #50) passes through a screen (Fig. 2, #42) to form screen effluent (Fig. 2, #52) which is treated biologically in the anoxic tank and the aerobic tank (i.e., biologically treating contaminated water; Paragraphs 0019-0020)
wherein the mixed liquor (Fig. 2, #54) from the aerobic tank is sent to the membrane tank (i.e., a purification tank; Fig. 2, #48) with immersed membranes (i.e., after biologically treating the contaminated water, filtering a biologically treated contaminated water in a separate purification tank by a membrane module disposed in the purification tank; Paragraph 0019)
wherein powdered activated carbon (i.e., an adsorption agent comprising powder activated carbon; Fig. 2, #60) is added to the membrane bioreactor at the anoxic tank so that the powdered activated carbon contacts mixed liquor (Paragraph 0023) where the membrane bioreactor is configured such that the particles are allowed to contact the membranes directly (i.e., adding an adsorption agent comprising powder activated carbon to the purification tank at a raw side of the membrane module; Paragraph 0008) and the sorbent is maintained at a concentration in the mixed liquor of 200 mg/L or more (i.e., 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; Paragraph 0009) with an example demonstrating an anoxic tank with a submersible mixer (i.e., by at least one of mixing, suspending the adsorption agent in the water; Paragraph 0039) and wherein waste activated sludge (Fig. 2, #58) is removed periodically and the dosing of the powdered activated carbon is adjusted based upon this sludge removal (i.e., and wherein adding the adsorption agent further comprises discontinuously discharging a portion of the adsorption agent from the purification tank; Paragraph 0025) with an example of maintaining a mixed liquor suspended solids concentration of between 6 and 8 g/L (i.e., for controlling a total solids in the purification tank such that the total solids of the purification tank is between 2 g/L and 6.5 g/L; Paragraph 0040),
and wherein air bubbles are provided to scour the membrane continuously (i.e., and aerating the membrane module by inflow of air; Paragraph 0022).
Wang does not teach the explicit total solids of the purification tank is between 2 g/L and 6.5 g/L 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 having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the total solids level that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Wang.
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the inflow of air comes from below.
However, Omil teaches that maintaining an air stream at all times by means of coarse bubble diffusers located in the lower portion of the membrane chamber (Paragraph 0020) which are fed by an air compressor (Fig. 1, #13) and seen to be located below the membrane (Fig. 1) for the purpose of creating cross-flow necessary for minimizing the membrane fouling (Paragraph 0020).
Omil is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the removal of contaminants present in wastewater by means of a sequential bioreactor coupled to a contiguous membrane chamber (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Wang with the air bubbles coming from below the membrane as taught by Omil because the cross-flow would minimize membrane fouling.
Regarding Claim 2, Omil further teaches wherein a process comprising anoxic operation followed by aerobic operation in a bioreactor can be followed with a settling step in the tank (Paragraph 0014) so that clarified effluent may be obtained and then the supernatant can be sent to the membrane chamber (i.e., further comprising disposing one membrane module in the purification tank to be flowed through by the contaminated water and supplying the biologically treated contaminated water from a sedimentation tank to the one membrane module in the purification tank; Paragraph 0016) wherein pharmaceutical compounds are found in different environments such as rivers and lakes (i.e., and introducing the water purified by the purification method into a river, lake from the purification tank); Paragraph 0003-0004) for the purpose making the final effluent nearly completely absent of pharmaceutical products (Paragraph 0016). Neither Wang nor Omil mention membranes used in the process outside of the membrane(s) in the tank used to filter biologically treated water (i.e., without flowing through another membrane module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process taught by Wang with the settling step and discharge to rivers and lakes as taught by Omil because the settling step would help create a final effluent that is nearly absent of pharmaceutical products.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang further teaches that wood based powdered activated carbon is used in the test (i.e., further comprising producing the powdered activated carbon from wood; Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang further teaches in which the nominal pore size of the membrane is less than 0.1 microns (Paragraph 0016) and the powdered activated carbon is at least 10 times larger than the membrane pore size and typically smaller than 297 microns, or 0.297 mm (i.e., further comprising selecting a nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon to be between 1 µm and 150 µm; Paragraph 0024). Wang does not teach the explicit nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon to be between 1 µm and 150 µm 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 having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the nominal grain size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Wang.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang further teaches in which the nominal pore size of the membrane is less than 0.1 microns (Paragraph 0016) and the powdered activated carbon is at least 10 times larger than the membrane pore size and typically smaller than 297 microns, or 0.297 mm (i.e., wherein the nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon is selected to be between 1 µm and 50 µm; Paragraph 0024). Wang does not teach the explicit nominal grain size of the powdered activated carbon to be between 1 µm and 50 µm 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 having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the nominal grain size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Wang.
Regarding Claim 12, Wang further teaches wherein the average pore size of the membrane is less than 0.1 microns (i.e., wherein filtering by the membrane module is by microfiltration; Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang further teaches wherein the average pore size of the membrane is less than 0.05 microns (i.e., wherein filtering by the membrane module is by ultrafiltration; Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang further teaches wherein the membrane may be a hollow fiber membrane (i.e., further comprising selecting the membrane module from the group consisting of a hollow fiber membrane module; Paragraph 0008).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang further teaches wherein the membrane is in a membrane tank (i.e., further comprising selecting the purification tank from the group consisting of a container; Fig. 2, #48; Paragraph 0019).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Omil, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Despen et al US Patent No. US 20150239743 A1 (hereinafter Despen).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Omil does not teach further comprising 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., further comprising selecting an iodine number of the powdered activated carbon to be greater than 900 mg/g; Page 11, Paragraph 0203).
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 at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the powdered activated carbon made obvious by Wang in view of Omil to use the biogenic activated carbon taught by Despen because the powdered activated carbon 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, 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, Wang in view of Omil 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 at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the powdered activated carbon made obvious by Wang in view of Omil 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Omil, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cote et al US Patent No. US 5932099 A (hereinafter Cote).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Omil does not teach further comprising adding precipitation and/or flocculation agents.
However, Cote teaches adding coagulation reagents (i.e., further comprising adding precipitation and/or flocculation agents; Fig. 1, #5) to a coagulation/flocculation unit (Fig. 1, #3) as a pre-treatment to a biological reactor for the purpose of coagulating colloidal matter in suspension in the water (Col. 6, Lines 32-49).
Cote is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to biological treatment of water (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Wang in view of Omil with the coagulation reagents as taught by Cote because the coagulation reagents would remove colloidal matter suspended in the water prior to biological treatment.
Regarding Claim 11, 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).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Omil 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, Wang further teaches wherein the filtration cycle has steps of withdrawing permeate and steps of backwashing or relaxation (wherein filtering the contaminated water comprises at least a filtration cycle, a relaxation cycle; or comprises at least a filtration cycle, and a backwashing cycle; Paragraph 0009). Wang teaches the use of filtration, backwashing and relaxation cycles but does not specifically teach all three in a single filtration cycle.
Wang in view of Omil does not explicitly 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 at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process made obvious by Wang in view of Omil with the membrane cleaning method as taught by Zha because the cleaning method would remove solids clogged within the membrane pores.
Regarding Claim 18, 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, 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, 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.
Conclusion
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights