DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 10/22/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claim 2 is rejected. Claims 1, 3-10 and 13-18 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that references Markle, Repke and Lombardi do not teach the sequential nature and order of the ozone-hypochlorite treatment and the hydraulic connection and downstream positioning of each module (pg. 6 and 8). This argument is unpersuasive because Markle teaches the hydraulic connection and downstream positioning of each module (Markle, Fig. 11, [0058]).
The Applicant argues that the ultrafiltration 162 of Markle is a part of a graywater treatment train and not a blackwater train that includes advanced oxidation zone 140 (pg. 7). This argument is unpersuasive because Fig. 11 of Markle shows an embodiment including ultrafiltration 162 and advanced oxidation zone 140 (Markle, Fig. 11, [0049-0051]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (pg. 7-9), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues that the hydraulic separator of Markle is a dissolved air flotation device whereas the claimed invention includes a microflotation system, requiring redesign of Markle (pg. 8). This argument is unpersuasive because Markle teaches that the dissolved air flotation device is simply a preferred embodiment (Markle, [0042]), thus the clarifier of Markle is not limited to only a dissolved air flotation device.
In response to applicant's argument that the hydraulic separator of Markle is a dissolved air flotation device whereas the claimed invention includes a microflotation system, requiring redesign of Markle (pg. 8-9), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant argues that the Applicant’s invention possesses observed advantages arising from the specific configuration and its operation, not from properties of prior systems (pg. 9-10). This argument is unpersuasive because the Applicant, in the originally filed application, has not provided data in support of unexpected and superior results (see MPEP 716.02(a)).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20090223882A1 (‘Markle’) in view of U.S. Patent US10029925B2 (‘Repke’) and in further view of U.S. Publication US20120298592A1 (‘Boal’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus and a method.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-18, Markle teaches an apparatus for the treatment of wastewater (abstract) comprising the following elements:
(i) a primary treatment module (Fig. 11, [0038-0039], screening zone 110) comprising at least one solids separation filter ([0039]);
(ii) a secondary treatment module (Fig. 11, [0041], clarifying zone 120) comprising at least one flotation unit (Fig. 11, [0042], hydraulic separator 129 may be a dissolved air flotation device) configured to remove suspended solids and oils and at least one oxidation treatment unit (Fig. 11, [0051], reactors 142, 144 and disinfecting zone 150) positioned downstream of said at least one flotation unit (Fig. 11) and configured to perform an advanced oxidation process ([0053], transforms ozone into hydroxyl radicals) comprising ozone treatment ([0051-0053]);
(iii) a tertiary treatment module (Fig. 11, [0049], ultrafiltration 162) positioned downstream of said secondary treatment module (Fig. 11) and including at least one membrane filtration unit ([0049]) receiving an effluent from said at least one oxidation treatment unit (Fig. 11, [0058]);
wherein the primary treatment module is hydraulically connected with the secondary treatment module, and the secondary treatment module is hydraulically connected with the tertiary treatment module such that the wastewater sequentially flows first to the primary treatment module followed to the secondary treatment module and thereafter to the tertiary treatment module (Fig. 11).
Markle does not teach that the at least one flotation unit is at least one microflotation unit and that the at least one oxidation treatment unit is configured to perform an advanced oxidation process comprising concurrent or sequential ozone and hypochlorite treatments.
Repke also relates to an apparatus for the treatment of wastewater (abstract), comprising at least one microflotation unit (Fig. 1, C12, L20-42, a separation or gassing tank 10 where compressed air in injected and microbubbles are formed directly in the introduced flocculation mixture. Repke teaches that the flocculation unit is in a dissolved air flotation (DAF) (note that Markle also uses a dissolved air flotation unit, see Markle, [0041-0042])).
Boal also relates to the treatment of wastewater (abstract), including an advanced oxidation process ([0032]) comprising concurrent or sequential ozone and hypochlorite treatments ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to include a microflotation unit, such as the microflotation unit of Repke, in the apparatus of Markle as these tiny bubbles are suitable for separating suspended matter with very small density or for separating organic hydrophobic ingredients (Repke, C2/L9-62). It would have been obvious for the at least one oxidation treatment unit of Markle and Repke to be configured to perform an advanced oxidation process comprising concurrent or sequential ozone and hypochlorite treatments, as demonstrated by Boal, to facilitate the advanced oxidation process while maintaining a chlorine residual for disinfection purposes (Boal, [0032] and [0051]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: said at least one microflotation unit comprises one or more microflotation systems including a microbubble generator (Repke, C3/L22-25, gassing unit) and a float tank containing wastewater (Repke, C3/L5-12, flotation cell), said microbubble generator being configured to inject a pressurized water/microbubble mixture into said float tank (Repke, C3/L59-67).
Claim 4: the at least one oxidation treatment unit further comprises at least one additional ozone treatment module (Markle, Fig. 11, [0051-0052], reactors 142 and 144), a hydrogen peroxide treatment module (Markle, [0053], UV unit 152 can transform ozone into hydrogen peroxide) or an electrochlorination module, taken alone or in combination.
Claim 5: said advanced oxidation process module further performs any of the following chemical processes, taken alone or in combination: a further ozone and hydrogen peroxide treatment (Markle, [0053], UV unit 152 can transform ozone into hydrogen peroxide), or a Fenton process treatment.
Claim 6: the at least one membrane filtration unit comprises one or more ultrafiltration units (Markle, [0049], ultrafilters 162).
Claim 8: said tertiary treatment module further comprises at least one UV disinfection unit downstream of said membrane filtration unit(s) (Markle, Fig. 2, [0053], UV unit 152).
Claim 9: a sludge treatment unit connected to said secondary treatment module by means for delivering sludge from said secondary treatment module into said sludge treatment unit (Markle, [0042-0043], directs separated sludge 126 into a sludge reduction tank 172 via an outfall pipe located at the top of the hydraulic separator 129).
Claim 10: at least one wastewater collecting unit connectable with a discharge of wastewater and situated upstream of said primary treatment module (Markle, [0038] and [0040], a first influent 102 enters the blackwater treatment train 100 from a blackwater collection system by way of a positive displacement pump);
means for flowing wastewater from said at least one wastewater collecting unit to said primary treatment module (Markle, [0038] and [0040], a first influent 102 enters the blackwater treatment train 100 from a blackwater collection system by way of a positive displacement pump).
Claim 13: A method for wastewater treatment in an apparatus according to claim 1 (see analysis of Claim 1) comprising sequentially treating wastewater through said primary treatment module, said secondary treatment module, and said tertiary treatment module (see analysis of Claim 1).
Claim 14: the method is performed on a vessel (Markle, abstract) and comprises the additional subsequent step of discharging overboard the treated wastewater downstream of said tertiary treatment module (Markle, Fig. 11).
Claim 15: the additional subsequent step of recycling at least part of the treated wastewater downstream of said tertiary treatment module as technical water (Markle, [0070], note that the graywater treatment train and blackwater treatment train use the same component design, see Markle, [0060]).
Claim 17: wastewater is sequentially (Markle, Fig. 11) fed to and from each said primary, secondary and tertiary treatment module (Markle, Fig. 11) in a continuous fashion (Markle, Fig. 4, [0043], continuous flow operation).
Claim 18: A method for wastewater treatment in an apparatus according to claim 10 (see analysis of Claim 10) comprising sequentially treating wastewater through said primary treatment module, said secondary treatment module, and said tertiary treatment module (see analysis of Claim 10 and Markle, Fig. 11).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20090223882A1 (‘Markle’), U.S. Patent US10029925B2 (‘Repke’) and U.S. Publication US20120298592A1 (‘Boal’) as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20070102359A1.
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus and a method.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the combination of Markle, Repke and Boal teaches the apparatus of Claim 6 and the method of Claim 13, except that said tertiary treatment module further comprises at least one reverse osmosis filter or nanofiltration unit downstream of said one or more ultrafiltration units and the additional subsequent step of recycling at least part of the treated wastewater downstream of said tertiary treatment module as potable water, where said tertiary treatment module comprises at least one reverse osmosis filter or nanofiltration unit downstream of said ultrafiltration unit.
Lombardi also relates to an apparatus for the treatment of wastewater (abstract) and a method for wastewater treatment (abstract), including that said tertiary treatment module further comprises at least one reverse osmosis filter or nanofiltration unit downstream of said one or more ultrafiltration units (Fig. 1, [0079-0080]) and the additional subsequent step of recycling at least part of the treated wastewater downstream of said tertiary treatment module as potable water ([0057], [0084] and [0094]), where said tertiary treatment module comprises at least one reverse osmosis filter or nanofiltration unit downstream of said ultrafiltration unit (Fig. 1, [0079-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combination of Markle, Repke and Boal to include the additional subsequent step of recycling at least part of the treated wastewater downstream of said tertiary treatment module as potable water, where said tertiary treatment module comprises at least one reverse osmosis filter or nanofiltration unit downstream of said ultrafiltration unit, as demonstrated by Lombardi, for future recovery prior to further treatment to meet potable water standards (Lombardi, [0094]) and to reuse water for beneficial water uses of economic value (Lombardi, [0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights