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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's request for continued examination filed February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 16-17 are amended, claims 10, 12-13, 15, 18-19, 21, 23, 27, and 33-39 are canceled, and claims 20, 22, 24-26, and 28-32 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 9, 11, 14, and 16-17 are further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous office action and adds a 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph rejection for claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “a method of treating municipal wastewater grit” comprising “obtaining municipal wastewater grit”. However, applicant’s original disclosure is silent with respect to the source of wastewater grit to be used in the claimed method. Applicant’s alleged support for the inclusion of “municipal wastewater grit” does not describe a method of treatment. Rather, paragraph 0003 of the published application merely recites the composition of wastewater grit. Additionally, “USEPA, 2003” is not incorporated by reference within applicant’s specification and is not considered to provide support to the amended claims. Therefore, the examiner considers the amended features drawn to “municipal wastewater grit” to be new matter not present in the originally-filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Francis et al., US 2003/0131759 (Francis).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Francis discloses a method of treating municipal wastewater grit (abstract, fig. 1, Claims 119-132), the method comprising:
Obtaining municipal wastewater grit (see “residual material”, abstract, ¶ 0009, 0032-0034, Claim 119, 125);
Mixing the municipal wastewater grit with an alkaline earth metal oxide comprising calcium oxide and magnesium oxide (Claims 119, 125); and
Adding a phosphate salt to the wastewater grit to produce a chemically bonded phosphate ceramic (see “phosphate”, abstract, ¶ 0040, Claim 119), wherein the method inactivates any pathogens present in the wastewater grit (via encapsulation, exothermic degradation, membrane disruption, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Francis discloses a method wherein the phosphate salt is di-ammonium phosphate (¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 17, Francis discloses a method wherein the treated wastewater grit comprises:
About 1-50% by weight wastewater grit (¶ 0038);
About 0.1-1.5% by weight CaO (¶ 0038);
About 1-25% by weight MgO (¶ 0038); and
About 3-75% by weight phosphate salt (¶ 0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis.
Francis does not disclose a method where the metal oxide addition results in increasing the pH of the wastewater grit to at least about 10. However, addition of magnesium oxide and/or calcium oxide necessarily increases the alkalinity of a reaction mixture due to the formation of hydroxide components within the mixture. Additionally, it can be envisioned that the metal oxide addition at least increases the pH of solution due to formation of the afore-mentioned hydroxide components in solution.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Francis to obtain the recited pH level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are found in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Francis does not disclose treatment of municipal wastewater grit is not found persuasive. Francis discloses mixing “reactive residual material” with water, metal oxides, and phosphate salts to form chemically-bonded phosphate ceramics, where the residual material can comprise municipal waste (¶ 0032), phosphate clays, slurries, mining waste, etc. (¶ 0009) obtained as a byproduct of municipal waste and mine processing industries (¶ 0032-0034). Since Francis discloses these components as slurries or mixtures with water, the examiner maintains that such components can be considered as municipal wastewater grit.
Applicant continues to argue Francis does not disclose the method inactivating any pathogens present in the wastewater grit. This argument is not found persuasive. As seen in the rejections set forth above, the examiner considers encapsulation, exothermic reactivity, etc. as “inactivation” of any pathogens since these physical and chemical reactions limit the activity of said pathogens.
Lastly, the examiner considers the inclusion of “municipal” to describe the wastewater grit as new matter not present in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant’s alleged support for the inclusion of “municipal” does not adequately support a method of treating wastewater grit where the source of wastewater grit is specified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights