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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on August 14, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-11 and 13-17 have been amended. Claims 2, 3 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 14-17 have been withdrawn. No new claim has been added. Claims 1, 4-11 and 13-17 are pending. Claims 1, 4-11 and 13 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Specification and Claims both filed 08/14/2025 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to claims 2-13 thereto are withdrawn accordingly. However, since claims 2, 3 and 12 have been cancelled, the previous objections/rejections to claims 2, 3 and 12 are considered moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered.
(a) Applicant argues that the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Sharir (EP 0 950 639 A1) and/or Binot et al. (US 7,001,525 B2). Applicant argues that: claim 1 is amended to recites “wherein said filtration module is a conveyer configured to convey sludge from said intake area to said sludge outlet, while facilitating percolating of liquid therethrough, wherein the removal of the sludge through the sludge outlet is performed at an adjustable rate, controlled by a respective actuator thereof, and wherein the system further comprises a level maintaining arrangement configured to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake, comprising: a sensor configured to sense a level parameter indicative of the height of the filter cake on the filtration module, and produce a corresponding level signal indicative of the value of said level parameter; and a controller configured to receive said level signal and produce a corresponding rate signal configured to be received by the respective actuator so as to adjust the respective rate thereof, to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake on the filtration module”, and such features are neither taught nor fairly suggested in Sharir and/or Binot. See Remarks, pages 8-9.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
(b) Applicant argues that: In Sharir, the partially clear water 42 is not a wastewater slurry per se because the water 42 is formed only after solids 34 have been removed (by sedimentation) from the mixture 28. In other words, the water 42 is a result of the removal of insoluble solids 34 and thus, the water 42 by itself, not containing the insoluble solids 34, cannot reasonably be deemed to be a "mixture of insoluble matter", i.e., a slurry, in contrast. See Remarks, pages 9-11.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 02/21/2025 (see pages 3-4), Sharir discloses a system for purifying wastewater (i.e., a system for treating wastewater) (Title; Abstract).
Sharir discloses a wastewater comprising coagulant (20, Fig. 1) is treated in a tank (30, Fig. 1) and a partially treated water is subsequently treated in another tank connected to the coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1) (paragraphs [0030]-[0041]). Since the fluid flowing through the separator (the portion downstream of the coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1)) comprises solid coagulants AND water, the separator (the portion downstream of the coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1)) does meets the recited “slurry separator”, wherein “slurry” is reasonably interpreted as “a liquid mixture, typically of fine particles of manure, cement, or solid suspended in water”.
Per MPEP, during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach (See MPEP 2111). Consequently, the claim limitation "slurry" in claim 1 is reasonably interpreted as “a liquid mixture, typically of fine particles of manure, cement, or solid suspended in water”. It is noted that the detailed composition of the slurry is not the scopes of limitations recited in claim 1 of claimed invention.
(c) Applicant argues that: The PTO appears to equate the load sensor 124 and controller 126 arrangement of Sharir with the claimed "level maintaining arrangement", and specifically cites paragraph [0038] of Sharir. Office Action, p. 4. As clearly stated in this paragraph, the disclosed sensor 124 is a "load sensor", and "determines the combined weight of part of the belt 44 and the body of water 122 retained thereon" - this has nothing to do with a "leveling monitoring arrangement". The "load sensor 124" of Sharir does not, and cannot, operate to maintain the level of water in this reference. Thus, Sharir also fails to disclose "the system further comprises a level maintaining arrangement configured to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake," in the manner as recited in independent claim 1. See Remarks, pages 11-12.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 02/21/2025 (see pages 3-4), Sharir discloses a system for purifying wastewater (i.e., a system for treating wastewater) (Title; Abstract). Sharir discloses, in paragraph [0038]: As seen more clearly in Figure 2, the belt 44 is non-taut and forms a trough 120 for retaining a body of water 122 above the surface 46. A load sensor 124 is in contact with the belt 44 and determines the combined weight of part of the belt 44 and the body of water 1 22 retained thereon, as well as any solids 60 on the belt 44. Sensor 124 is functionally connected to a motor controller 1 26, which sets the speed of a motor 128 as a function of such weight. Motor speed is thus arranged to suit so the formation of a microcake 130 of fine coagulated solids less than 1 mm thick. The belt surface 46 being thus covered improves the filtering capacity of the belt 44. Since the teachings of Sharir, specially in paragraph [0038]), direct the belt 44, Fig. 2 in conjunction with the sensor 124 functioning just as a “a level maintaining arrangement that maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake (e.g., a microcake of fine coagulated solids less than 1 mm thick).
It is still the examiner’s assessment that the teachings of Sharir meets the recitation “the system further comprises a level maintaining arrangement configured to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake” as recited.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified ground of rejections to claims 1, 4-11 and 13 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharir (EP 0 950 639 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sharir discloses a system for purifying wastewater (i.e., a system for treating wastewater) (Title; Abstract), wherein the system (10, Fig. 1) comprises (please refer to Fig. 1; the corresponding description of the embodiment in Fig.1-Fig. 3, paragraphs [0029]-[0043], Note that Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are detailed description of the slurry separator in Fig. 1):
(i) a coagulation-flocculation assembly (12, 30, Fig. 1) having a raw wastewater inlet (14, Fig. 1), a coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1), a coagulating agent inlet (20, Fig. 1) configured to facilitate introduction of coagulating agent to the coagulation-flocculation assembly, said coagulation-flocculation assembly (12, 30, Fig. 1) being configured to receive raw wastewater (16, Fig. 1) through said raw wastewater inlet (14, Fig. 1), facilitate mixing (by using an impeller, 22, Fig. 1) of the raw wastewater with the coagulating agent therein so as to form coagulated wastewater (28, Fig. 1), facilitate flocculation (in tank 30, Fig. 1) of coagulated wastewater so as to form coagulated-flocculated wastewater slurry (42, Fig. 1), and dispense the coagulated-flocculated wastewater slurry (42, Fig. 1) through said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1); and
(ii) a slurry separator (the portion downstream of the coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1)) comprising an intake area (48, Fig. 1) configured for receiving wastewater slurry (42, Fig. 1) from said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1), a liquid outlet (64, Fig. 1), a sludge outlet (62, Fig. 1), and a filtration module (44, Fig. 1) configured to facilitate percolating of liquid therethrough and forming of a filter cake (130, Fig. 2) thereon; said slurry separator being configured to receive slurry at said intake area (48, Fig. 1), separate said slurry to liquid (clear water) (58, Fig. 1) and sludge (60, Fig. 1) by said filtration module (44, Fig. 1), remove said liquid (58, Fig. 1) via said liquid outlet (64, Fig. 1), and convey said sludge from the intake area (48, Fig. 1) to said sludge outlet (62, Fig. 1);
wherein the filtration module is a conveyor (44, Fig. 1) configured to convey sludge from the intake area (48, Fig. 1) to the sludge outlet (62, Fig. 1), while facilitating percolating of liquid therethrough (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]);
wherein the system further comprises a level maintaining arrangement (sensor 124, Fig. 2 in conjunction with a motor controller 126, Fig. 2) in configured to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake (paragraph [0038]).
Sharir discloses, in paragraph [0038]: As seen more clearly in Figure 2, the belt 44 is non-taut and forms a trough 120 for retaining a body of water 122 above the surface 46. A load sensor 124 is in contact with the belt 44 and determines the combined weight of part of the belt 44 and the body of water 1 22 retained thereon, as well as any solids 60 on the belt 44. Sensor 124 is functionally connected to a motor controller 1 26, which sets the speed of a motor 128 as a function of such weight. Motor speed is thus arranged to suit so the formation of a microcake 130 of fine coagulated solids less than 1 mm thick. The belt surface 46 being thus covered improves the filtering capacity of the belt 44. Since the teachings of Sharir, specially in paragraph [0038]), direct the belt 44, Fig. 2 in conjunction with the sensor 124 functioning just as a “a level maintaining arrangement that maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake (e.g., a microcake of fine coagulated solids less than 1 mm thick).
Sharir discloses that the sensor (124, Fig. 2) is in contact with a filtration module which is in the form of a conveyor (perforated belt 44, Fig. 1), said sensor determines the amount of the cake formed on the conveyor; wherein the sensor is functionally connected to a motor controller (126, Fig. 2) which sets the speed of a motor (128, Fig. 2) as a function of the cake amount, such that the motor speed is arranged to suit the formation of a predetermined level of cake (paragraph [0038]). The conveyor (44, Fig. 1) is configured to convey sludge from the intake area (48, Fig. 1) to the sludge outlet (62, Fig. 1), while facilitating percolating of liquid therethrough (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). The teachings of Sharir, set forth above, fully address the recitations “a sensor configured to sense a level parameter indicative of the height of the filter cake on the filtration module, and produce a corresponding level signal indicative of the value of said level parameter; and a controller configured to receive said level signal and produce a corresponding rate signal configured to be received by the respective actuator so as to adjust the respective rate thereof, to maintain at least a minimal level of the filter cake on the filtration module.”
In regard to claim 4, Sharir discloses that the sensor (124, Fig. 2) is in contact with a filtration module which is in the form of a conveyor (perforated belt 44, Fig. 1), said sensor determines the amount of the cake formed on the conveyor; wherein the sensor is functionally connected to a motor controller (126, Fig. 2) which sets the speed of a motor (128, Fig. 2) as a function of the cake amount, such that the motor speed is arranged to suit the formation of a predetermined level of cake (paragraph [0038]). The conveyor (44, Fig. 1) is configured to convey sludge from the intake area (48, Fig. 1) to the sludge outlet (62, Fig. 1), while facilitating percolating of liquid therethrough (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). The teachings of Sharir, set forth above, fully address the recitations of claim 4.
In regard to claim 5, Sharir discloses the coagulation-flocculation assembly (12, 30, Fig. 1) comprises:
a coagulation tank (12, Fig. 1) comprising said raw wastewater inlet (14, Fig. 1), a coagulated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1), and said coagulating agent inlet (20, Fig. 1), said coagulation tank (12, Fig. 1) being configured to receive raw wastewater (16, Fig. 1) through said raw wastewater inlet (14, Fig. 1), facilitate mixing (by using an impeller, 22, Fig. 1) of the raw wastewater with the coagulating agent therein, and facilitate evacuating of coagulated wastewater (28, Fig. 1) therefrom through said coagulated wastewater outlet (26, 32, Fig. 1, a conduit that transport the coagulated wastewater 28, Fig. 1 therethrough); and
a flocculation tank (30, Fig. 1) comprising a coagulated wastewater inlet being in flow communication with said coagulated wastewater outlet (26, 32, Fig. 1, a conduit that transport the coagulated wastewater 28, Fig. 1 therethrough at the lower portion of the flocculation tank (30, Fig. 1)), and said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1); said flocculation tank (30, Fig. 1) being configured to receive coagulated wastewater through said coagulated wastewater inlet, facilitate flocculation of the coagulated wastewater therein, and facilitate dispensing of said coagulated-flocculated wastewater (42, Fig. 1) therefrom through said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet (50, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 6, Sharir discloses the coagulation-flocculation assembly (12, 30, Fig. 1) further comprises a flocculating agent inlet (20, Fig. 1) configured to facilitate introduction of flocculating agent to the coagulation-flocculation assembly (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
In regard to claim 7, Sharir discloses the flocculation of the coagulated wastewater includes mixing of the coagulated wastewater with said flocculating agent by using an impeller (22, Fig. 1) powered by a motor (24, Fig. 1) (paragraph [0033]).
Sharir discloses every limitation recited in claims 1 and 4-7.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharir (EP 0 950 639 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binot et al. (US 7,001,525 B2, hereinafter “Binot”).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Sharir does not explicitly disclose the system further comprises a turbidity sensor configured to sense a turbidity parameter indicative of a turbidity of said liquid, wherein the introduction of at least one of said flocculating agent and said coagulating agent is performed at an adjustable supply rate determined according to readings of said turbidity sensor so as to maintain at least a maximal level of turbidity of said liquid.
Binot discloses an apparatus for, and a method for treatment of water, permitting the physico-chemical treatment of water, including a ballasted flocculation stage using a granular ballast material with a density greater than water, followed by, a stage of gravity separation of the treated water and the flocculent mass, a stage of separation of the granular mate rial, recycled for the flocculation stage and the muds (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; col. 8, claim 1). Binot discloses
turbidity sensor or a sensor for detecting the concentration of a parameter characteristic of water treated by a coagulation-flocculation assembly; wherein said sensor provides a signal to an automatic controller for controlling various process conditions including the introduction of chemical reagents to said assembly (column 4, lines 41-55).
It is noted that both the Sharir and Binot references directs an apparatus for, and a method for treatment of water, permitting the physico-chemical treatment of water, including a coagulation-flocculation stage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Sharir to provide the feature of the system further comprises a turbidity sensor configured to sense a turbidity parameter indicative of a turbidity of said liquid, wherein the introduction of at least one of said flocculating agent and said coagulating agent is performed at an adjustable supply rate determined according to readings of said turbidity sensor so as to maintain at least a maximal level of turbidity of said liquid as taught or suggested by Binot, because the recited feature of the system further comprises a turbidity sensor configured to sense a turbidity parameter indicative of a turbidity of said liquid, wherein the introduction of at least one of said flocculating agent and said coagulating agent is performed at an adjustable supply rate determined according to readings of said turbidity sensor so as to maintain at least a maximal level of turbidity of said liquid a known, effective feature that monitor and control the apparatus for purifying wastewater comprising a coagulation-flocculation stage as taught by Binot (column 4, lines 41-55).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, as set forth above, Sharir, in view of Binot, fully addresses the feature of the system further comprises a turbidity sensor configured to sense a turbidity parameter indicative of a turbidity of said liquid, wherein the introduction of at least one of said flocculating agent and said coagulating agent is performed at an adjustable supply rate determined according to readings of said turbidity sensor so as to maintain at least a maximal level of turbidity of said liquid.
It is noted that the floc-size in the wastewater is related to the turbidity parameter indicative of a turbidity of said liquid. Consequently, the feature of including a floc-size sensor configured to sense a size parameter indicative of size of floes in said slurry at an area of said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet, and subsequently, the introduction of at least one of said flocculating agent and said coagulating agent is performed at an adjustable supply rate determined according to readings of said floe-size sensor so as to maintain the size of the flocs in said slurry at an area of said coagulated-flocculated wastewater outlet within a predetermined range is considered a practice conducted by one skilled in the art in accordance with circumstances, to solve the problem. The limitations recited in claims 11 and 12 are considered obvious over the teachings of Sharir, in view of Binot.
In regard to claim 13, Binot discloses the feature of the tank (2, Fig. 1a) is slated toward the outlet of the flocculation settlement (col. 5, lines 1049). Consequently, the recitation of “said conveyer is at least partially sloped upwards towards said sludge outlet so as to contribute to the forming of the filter cake” is considered obvious over Sharir, in view of Binot.
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 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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772