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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 5/18/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard et al. (US 2016/0145126 in IDS) in view of Hanna et al. (US 2013/0292342).
Regarding claim 1, Ballard teaches an apparatus comprising two or more reactor tanks that are fluidly connected to a clarification tank, wherein the two or more reactor tanks are capable of receiving an influent and inducing flocculation, and outputting an effluent to the clarification tank, and the clarification tank has a means to remove the settled sludge from the system (Figs. 1-2 and 3C-3E, [0051]-[0065], and [0069]-[0073]).
Ballard teaches the two or more reactor tanks are provided in series and not connected to the clarification tank independently of the other tank (parallel configuration) as claimed. Hanna teaches that that in cases where an increase in fluid being treated for flocculation is desired, providing multiple reactors in parallel is used. Further, Hanna further teaches that one skilled in the art could use a combination of series and parallel reactors thereby providing multiple sequential flocculation reaction steps in series while also providing the benefit of more fluid treated due to the parallel configuration ([0061]-[0062]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide reactor tanks in parallel with independent connection to the downstream solid liquid separation means in order to allow for an increase in fluid being treated.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). As such, Ballard teaches all claimed structure and the exact effects of operating the same apparatus would be considered intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Ballard teaches a coagulant tank (120 211) as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Ballard teaches a means for inducing turbulence (121 131 141 212 214 217) in the reactor tanks (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Ballard teaches a floor scraper (341) in the clarification tank (Figs. 3D and 3E).
Regarding claim 5, Ballard teaches a recycling of at least some of the sludge in the embodiments shown in Figs. 1-2 and a scraper as shown in the embodiments of Figs 3C and 3E. However, the no embodiments teaches the combination of the recycling means as claimed and the scraper. It is Examiner’s position that including a scraper in the embodiments of Figs. 1-2 as a scraper would allow for scraping and conveyance of the flocs when settled (see [0070]-[0072]). Or it would have been obvious to provide the recycle system in the embodiments of Figs 3C and 3E in order to allow for reuse of various chemicals and media present in the sludge that improve settling (see [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that while Ballard does not explicitly state sloping lamella are used, Figs. 1 and 3C clearly show sloping lamella consistent with industry depictions/standards as part of the system even if not explicitly labeled as such.
Regarding claim 7, it is submitted that the means for the effluent to go from the reactor tanks to the clarification tank would be considered a transition chute consistent with Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 for the structural limitations. Ballard fails to teach the respective sizing, maximum flow rate to capability, and flow rates as claimed. It is noted that the limitations would appear to be met if the two or more reactor tanks are smaller than the clarification tanks, something that is shown in the figures of Ballard. However, as the relationship between capability of the respective tanks and maximum flow rates are not explicitly stated, it is Examiner’s position that one skilled in the art would have found that the sizing or proportion the tanks as shown in Ballard would read on the claim limitations directed to capable/flow rate, or it would have been obvious to modify the sizing within a range to achieve the desired result as it is merely an obvious change of size/proportion when optimizing the apparatus (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 1 above for how the reactor tanks and clarification tank meet the intended use limitations.
Regarding claim 10, see claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the above rejection has been modified to address the parallel configuration of reactors.
In regards to Applicant arguments directed to sizing and potential maximum flow rates. It is noted that the argued limitations are directed to operational parameters and what controls said parameters are the size of the respective equipment. A larger tank or pipe can allow for greater fluid flow and greater amount of fluid being treated. Further, as Ballard in view of Hanna teach parallel reactors for flocculation in order to increase the amount of fluid being treated (Hanna [0061]), a downstream solids/liquid separation means would have to be sized to accommodate the amount of flow increase due to the increase in amount of liquids treated, which would meet the argued claim limitations regarding flow and sizing to accommodate the desired flows.
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 PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights