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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 9/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 23 and 25-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 6/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 23, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2007/0180802, hereinafter Parker in view of United States Patent No. 6,013,512, hereinafter Turschmid and A. A. Khan and N. Rapal, "Fuzzy PID Controller: Design, Tuning and Comparison with Conventional PID Controller," 2006 IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Intelligent Systems, Islamabad, 2006, pp. 1-6, hereinafter Khan.
Regarding claim 23, Parker teaches a method of reducing water consumption of a biotrickling filter (paragraph [0053]), the method comprising: adding a pH adjustment system to the biotrickling filter (paragraph [0055]), the pH adjustment system configured to: measure a pH of water in the biotrickling filter (paragraph [0055]); and control a rate of introduction of water into the biotrickling filter (paragraph [0057]) to be sufficient to maintain the pH of the liquid within a range conducive to maintain a population of hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria in a media bed of the biotrickling filter (paragraphs [0055] and [0057]) and to prevent clogging of the media bed (water is being introduced to the media bed and therefore would be rinsing salts and the sulfuric acid from the media bed which would prevent clogging).
Parker fails to teach introducing an alkaline material from a source of alkaline material into the biotrickling filter; and control a rate of introduction of the alkaline material into the biotricklining filter based on a predetermined pH setpoint and a change in pH of the water having passed through the media bed per unit time.
Turschmid teaches a method for scrubbing gaseous emissions using bacteria in which an alkaline material is added to a biomass chamber to maintain the suspension in the desired pH range based on a difference of the setpoint and measured pH value (Turschmid, column 7, lines 1-7).
Parker further teaches that excess irrigation fluid beyond the volumetric capacity of the scrubber column is trained from the scrubber sump via a drain (paragraph [0055)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added and controlled the flow of an alkaline material to control the pH within a predetermined range of the water within the biotrickling filter using the difference between the predetermined set point and measured pH value (Turschmid, column 7, lines 1-7) because it would reduce the amount of excess irrigation fluid that would have to be drained from the scrubber (paragraph [0055]) which would have to be treated.
Parker and Turschmid fail to teach the controller is configured to regulate the rate of introduction of the water and the rate of introduction of the alkaline material into the vessel based on an output of a fuzzy logic algorithm.
Kahn teaches a fuzzy PID controller which uses a proportional component and a differential component because it can provide a better transitory and steady state performance as compared with a conventional PID controller (Kahn, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fuzzy PID controller with the different in pH values as the input because it can provide a better transitory and steady state performance as compared with a conventional PID controller (Kahn, abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Parker teaches wherein reducing the water consumption of the biotrickling filter includes reducing the water consumption of the biotrickling filter by at least about 50% compared to biotrickling filter systems that do not utilize alkaline material to partially neutralize sulfuric acid generated in the biotrickling filter (the amount of water can be considered to be reduced by at least 50% when considering all of the water on the planet).
Regarding claim 26, Parker teaches wherein reducing the water consumption of the biotrickling filter includes reducing the water consumption of the biotrickling filter by at least about 99% compared to biotrickling filter systems that do not utilize alkaline material to partially neutralize sulfuric acid generated in the biotrickling filter (the amount of water can be considered to be reduced by at least 99% when considering all of the water on the planet).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,695,716 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates or renders obvious the examined claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Parker, Turschmid and/or Khan does not teach utilizing a difference between the pH of water having passed through a media bed of the biotrickling filter and a predetermined pH setpoint and a change in pH of the water having passed through the media bed per unit time as input parameters of a fuzzy logic control algorithm is not found persuasive. Turschmid teaches utilizing a difference between the pH of water passed through the media bed and a predetermined pH setpoint and a change in pH of the water passed through the media bed per unit time in a controller to control the amount of alkaline material added (Turschmid, column 7, lines 1-7). Khan teaches utilizing a fuzzy logic control instead of a traditional controller. Based upon these two teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these three references to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796