DETAILED ACTION
1. This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on , and any subsequent filings.
2. Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
3. Claims 17-30 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. 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 Arguments
Drawings
5. Due to the Applicant’s amendments, the previous drawings objections are removed.
Specification
6. Due to the Applicant’s amendments, the previous specification objections are removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. Due to the Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 USC § 112 rejections are removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 17-18 and 21-23
10. The Applicant argues that Zhang lacks a step of solubilizing organic macro-molecules in a pretreatment zone (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because the bottom conic/clearance portion of Zhang (Zhang, Fig. 1) is being interpreted as a pretreatment zone, where aerobic carbon degradation microorganisms existed (Zhang, pg. 5, Pr2).
11. The Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach or suggest a reactor configuration providing SND conditions that allow for such distinct microenvironments within a single reactor (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because Zhang teaches controlling dissolved oxygen DO concentration to achieve the SND process in a single reactor (Zhang, pg. 6, left column, Pr2).
12. The Applicant argues that Zhang features fixed inclined plates, whereas the present application involves a spiral separator that exerts a refreshing effect on the sludge due to its rotation (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because Zhang was not relied upon to teach a rotating spiral separator.
13. The Applicant argues that Zhang fails to disclose a movable aerator (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because Zhang was not relied upon to teach a movable aerator.
14. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., handling variable wastewater loads (pg. 11)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
15. In response to applicant's argument that the rotating spiral separator of Hoxar has a purpose of preventing untreated liquid from bypassing separators whereas the rotating spiral separator of the present application prevents clogging of spiral plates (pg. 11), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
16. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the rotating spiral separator of Hoxar has a purpose of preventing untreated liquid from bypassing separators whereas the rotating spiral separator of the present application prevents clogging of spiral plates (pg. 11)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
17. In response to applicant's argument that reference Hoxar involves municipal water whereas the present application involves high-solids sludge (pg. 11), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
18. The Applicant argues that Hoxar fails to address sludge densification and lacks suggestion towards integrating anaerobic-anoxic-oxic zones in a single stage bioreactor (pg. 11). This is unpersuasive because Hoxar was not relied upon to teach these features.
19. The Applicant argues that Hoxar fails to disclose a movable aerator (pg. 11). This is unpersuasive because the aerator of Hoxar is rotating (Hoxar, C3/L1-9), which is interpreted as a type of movement.
20. The Applicant argues that Hoxar fails to reach a pretreatment zone (pg. 11). This is unpersuasive because Hoxar was not relied upon to teach a pretreatment zone.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
21. 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.
Claims 17-23 are 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 17 is rejected because Claim 17 reads “…the aerator… is vertically moveable thereon.” Page 12 of the originally filed specification describes the aerator as being moveable, but does not mention that the aerator is vertically moveable.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 17 and 22 both recite “the treated wastewater passes up through a plate pack of the rotatable spiral separator and leaves the separator via the liquid outlet port, while the sludge enters the reaction zone, thereby increasing the solids retention time (SRT) within the bioreactor” and Claims 17 and 23 both recite the aerator is a moveable aerator mounted in the inner tube”. The dependent claims recite claim limitations already in the parent claim so it is unclear how the dependent claims further narrow the scope of the parent claim.
22. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
23. Claims 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 17 and 22 both recite “the treated wastewater passes up through a plate pack of the rotatable spiral separator and leaves the separator via the liquid outlet port, while the sludge enters the reaction zone, thereby increasing the solids retention time (SRT) within the bioreactor” and Claims 17 and 23 both recite the aerator is a moveable aerator mounted in the inner tube”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Claims 17-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication A New Developed Airlift Reactor Integrated Settling Process and Its Application for Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification Nitrogen Removal (‘Zhang’, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, The ScientificWorld Journal, Volume 2013, Article ID 345725, 7 pages) in view of Publication Treatment of petrochemical wastewater by microaerobic hydrolysis and anoxic/oxic processes and analysis of bacterial diversity (‘Yang’, Bioresource Technology 196 (2015) 169–175) and in further view of Publication Biological CNP removal from meat-processing wastewater in an innovative high rate up-flow A2O bioreactor (‘Abyar’, Chemosphere 213 (2018) 197-204) and in further view of U.S. Patent US5624580A (‘Hoxar’).28. The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
29. Regarding Claims 17-19 and 21-23, Zhang teaches a method (abstract) for treating wastewater in an anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (pg. 3, left column, Pr3) single stage bioreactor (abstract) comprising:
30. introducing the wastewater in a bottom region of the bioreactor via a feed port (Fig. 1, pg. 3, left column, Pr3, wastewater enters the bottom region of the reactor via pump);
31. solubilizing organic macro-molecules in the wastewater by accommodating anaerobic and/or microaerobic microorganisms in a microaerobic and/or anaerobic (pg. 3, left column, Pr3) pretreatment zone located at the bottom region of the bioreactor (Fig. 1, pg. 2, left column, last Pr, bottom conic/clearance portion. Biological reaction process occurs in reaction zone, pg. 3, left column, Pr1);
32. providing an airlift (abstract) in a reaction zone located in a middle region of the bioreactor via an aerator (see air in Fig. 1, pg. 2, left column, last Pr, gas sprayer introduces gas bubbles into inner tube of reaction zone), and wherein the reaction zone is vertically integrated into and in direct fluid communication with said microaerobic and/or anaerobic pretreatment zone (Fig. 1) and wherein the airlift is configured so that gas bubbles from the aerator move upwardly into an inner tube (pg. 2, left column, last Pr) and cause a liquid circulation flow between the inner tube and an annular zone disposed between the inner and an outer tube (pg. 2, left column, last Pr), wherein the aerator is mounted in the inner tube (pg. 2, Pr5);
33. treating wastewater exiting the pretreatment zone under anoxic and/or aerobic conditions in the reaction zone by microbial populations housed in the middle region of the bioreactor (pg. 3, left column, Pr1, biological reaction process occurs in reaction zone);
34. after a treated wastewater exits the reaction zone, separating suspended biomass in the treated wastewater from liquid effluent via a separator (inclined plate (pg. 3, right column, Pr1) settling withdraws sludge, pg. 3, left column, Pr1) in a settling zone (Fig. 1) at the top region of the bioreactor (Fig. 1, pg. 2, right column, Pr1, settling zone is at the top of the reaction zone);
35. a downward flow of the treated effluent exiting the reaction zone (pg. 2, left column, last Pr – right column, last Pr);
36. allowing the settled biomass to coalesce into thickened sludge (pg. 3, left column, Pr1, condensed sludge layer) that can be removed via a solid removal port (pg. 3, left column, Pr3, excess sludge is withdrawn through a bottom valve);
37. and removing the liquid effluent through a liquid outlet port (pg. 2, right column, Pr1, outflow weir),
38. wherein a treated wastewater passes up through a plate pack (pg. 2, right column-pg. 3, left column) and leaves the separator via the liquid outlet port (pg. 2, right column, Pr1, outflow weir) while the sludge enters the reaction zone (pg. 2, right column-pg. 3, left column), thereby increasing a solids retention time (SRT) within the bioreactor (pg. 2, left column, Pr2-3).
39. Zhang does not teach that the microaerobic and/or anaerobic pretreatment zone is a microaerobic and/or anaerobic hydrolysis pretreatment zone, the aerator is vertically moveable, and that the separator is a spiral separator having a central core, rotating the spiral separator and wherein the central core accommodates a downward flow.
40. Yang also relates to a method for treating wastewater in an anaerobic (pgs. 1-2)-anoxic-oxic (abstract) bioreactor comprising: solubilizing organic macro-molecules in the wastewater by accommodating anaerobic and/or microaerobic microorganisms in a dedicated microaerobic and/or anaerobic hydrolysis pretreatment zone (pgs. 1-2).
41. Abyar also relates to a method for treating wastewater in an anaerobic-anoxic-oxic single stage bioreactor (abstract), wherein the aerator is vertically moveable (pg. 198, right column, last Pr).
42. Hoxar also relates to a method for treating wastewater (abstract), comprising separating suspended biomass (suspended matter (C1, L3-6), such as sewage sludge, C4, L27-33) from liquid effluent (C4, L27-33) via a spiral separator (Fig. 1, C2, L55-60, helical plates 10) having a central core (inner volume of tubular wall 8, C2, L49-58, Figs. 1-2) in a settling zone (tank 1 (C2, L37-40, Fig. 1) in which sludge is settled, C4, L56-61);
43. rotating the spiral separator (C3, L1-4) and wherein the central core accommodates a downflow (see arrows showing flow rising in rising section 7 then flowing downwards within the inner volume of tubular wall 8, Fig. 1).
44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pretreatment zone of Zhang to be a dedicated microaerobic and/or anaerobic hydrolysis pretreatment zone, as demonstrated by Yang, to increase biodegradation and benefit subsequent aerobic treatment (Yang, pg. 2, left column). It would have been obvious for the aerator of Zhang and Yang to be vertically moveable, as demonstrated by Abyar, because a high aerated volume fraction results in high COD, total nitrogen removal and phosphorus removal efficiencies (Abyar, abstract). It would have been obvious to use a spiral separator, such as the spiral separator of Hoxar, in the method of Zhang, Yang and Abyar, to induce a circulation which leads to a radial outflow producing a descending annular curtain of fluid at the radially outer edge of the plates, lifting fluid through the plate assembly and enhancing the downflow of coalesced particulate matter (Hoxar, C3, L42-48). This also discourages the formation of upward flows in this region (Hoxar, C3, L48-49) to prevent untreated liquid from bypassing the separators (Hoxar, C3, L49-50 and C5, L12-20).
Additional Disclosures Included
45. Claim 18: the wastewater that is selected from pharmaceutical, petrochemical, food processing, livestock, and composting leachate (Zhang, pg. 1, left column, Pr1) wastewater.
46. Claim 19: the organic macro-molecules are solubilized into smaller molecules by the anaerobic and/or microaerobic microorganisms via a hydrolysis and/or acidification (Yang, pgs.1-2).
47. Claim 21: the bioreactor comprises different nitrogen removal pathways (Zhang, pg. 3, section 2.3. Analytical Methods and pg. 4, right column, last Pr-pg. 5, left column, Pr1).
48. Claim 22: when the bioreactor is in use, the treated wastewater passes up through a plate pack of the rotatable spiral separator (Hoxar, C3, L1-4) and leaves the separator via the liquid outlet port, while the sludge enters the reaction zone (Zhang, pg. 2, right column-pg. 3, left column), thereby increasing the solids retention time (SRT) within the bioreactor (Zhang, pg. 2, left column, Pr2-3).
49. Claim 23: aerator is a moveable aerator (Abyar, pg. 198, right column, last Pr) mounted in the inner tube (Zhang, pg. 2, Pr5).
50. Claims 24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication A New Developed Airlift Reactor Integrated Settling Process and Its Application for Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification Nitrogen Removal (‘Zhang’, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, The ScientificWorld Journal, Volume 2013, Article ID 345725, 7 pages) in view of U.S. Patent US5624580A (‘Hoxar’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US5624562A (‘Scroggins’).
51. The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
52. Regarding Claims 24 and 26-28, Zhang teaches a single-stage anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (pg. 3, left column, Pr3) bioreactor for wastewater treatment (abstract) comprising:
53. a peristaltic feed pump (pg. 3, left column, Pr3) for continuously introducing a feed of wastewater into a feed port of the bioreactor, the feeding port located at a bottom region of the bioreactor (Fig. 1, pg. 3, left column, Pr3, wastewater enters the bottom region of the reactor via pump);
54. the feeding port in fluid communication with a pretreatment zone (Fig. 1, pg. 2, left column, last Pr, bottom conic/clearance portion. Biological reaction process occurs in reaction zone, pg. 3, left column, Pr1) in the bottom region thereof (Fig. 1) for solubilizing micro molecules in the wastewater by accommodating anaerobic and/or microaerobic conditions (pg. 3, left column, Pr3);
55. an aerobic/anoxic condition in a middle region (pg. 3, left column, Pr1, biological reaction process occurs in reaction zone) in liquid communication with the pretreatment zone when the bioreactor is in operation, wherein the reaction zone comprises two concentric inner and outer tubes (pg. 2, left column, last Pr), and
56. an aerator mounted in the inner tube (see air in Fig. 1, pg. 2, left column, last Pr, gas sprayer introduces gas bubbles into inner tube of reaction zone) to provide an airlift configuration to the feed via the aerator (pg. 2, left column, last Pr); and
57. wherein the reaction zone is configured so that when the reactor is in operation, gas bubbles from the aerator move upwardly into the inner tube (pg. 2, left column, last Pr) and cause a liquid circulation flow between the inner tube and an annular zone disposed between the inner and the outer tube (pg. 2, left column, last Pr);
58. a settling zone in a top region (Fig. 1, pg. 2, right column, Pr1, settling zone is at the top of the reaction zone) for separating suspended biomass in the wastewater from liquid effluent (pg. 3, left column, Pr1), the settling zone comprising a downward flow of a treated effluent exiting the reaction zone (Fig. 1) induced by the airlift configuration (pg. 2, left column, last Pr) and a series of outwardly extending inclined plates (pg. 2, right column, Pr1) on which the suspended biomass coalesce into thickened sludge (pg. 3, left column, Pr1 and pg. 4, left column, Pr2);
59. a liquid outlet port for withdrawing the liquid effluent (pg. 2, right column, Pr1, outflow weir); and
60. removing excess sludge via a solid outlet port (pg. 3, left column, Pr3, excess sludge was withdrawn through the bottom valve).
61. However, Zhang does not teach that the separator is a rotatable spiral separator having a central core for accommodating a downward flow and a series of outwardly extending inclined plates arranged in a spiral configuration, and a sludge wasting pump.
62. Hoxar also relates to a method for treating wastewater (abstract), comprising a settling zone (suspended matter (C1, L3-6), such as sewage sludge, C4, L27-33) comprising a rotatable (C3, L1-4) spiral separator (Fig. 1, C2, L55-60, helical plates 10) having a central core (inner volume of tubular wall 8, C2, L49-58, Figs. 1-2) for accommodating a downward flow of a treated effluent (see arrows showing flow rising in rising section 7 then flowing downwards within the inner volume of tubular wall 8, Fig. 1) and a series of outwardly extending inclined plates arranged in a spiral configuration (C2, L55-58).
63. Scroggins also relates to a single-stage (abstract) anoxic-oxic bioreactor for wastewater treatment (C5, L30-33), including a sludge wasting pump (Fig. 1, C6, L49-60, digested sludge pump 20 pumps settled sludge from tank 16).
64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spiral separator, such as the rotatable spiral separator of Hoxar, in the bioreactor of Zhang, to induce a circulation which leads to a radial outflow producing a descending annular curtain of fluid at the radially outer edge of the plates, lifting fluid through the plate assembly and enhancing the downflow of coalesced particulate matter (Hoxar, C3, L42-48). This also discourages the formation of upward flows in this region (Hoxar, C3, L48-49) to prevent untreated liquid from bypassing the separators (Hoxar, C3, L49-50 and C5, L12-20). It would have been obvious for the combination of Zhang and Hoxar to include a sludge wasting pump, as demonstrated by Scroggins, to periodically pump settled sludge for direct disposal or further treatment, such as dewatering (Scroggins, C6, L49-60), to maintain the sludge retention time (Zhang, pg. 3, Pr3).
Additional Disclosures Included:
65. Claim 26: the bioreactor comprises different nitrogen removal pathways (Zhang, pg. 3, section 2.3. Analytical Methods and pg. 4, right column, last Pr-pg. 5, left column, Pr1).
66. Claim 27: when the bioreactor is in use, the treated wastewater passes up through a plate pack of the rotatable spiral separator (Hoxar, C3, L1-4) and leaves the separator via the liquid outlet port, while the sludge enters the reaction zone (Zhang, pg. 2, right column-pg. 3, left column), thereby increasing the solids retention time (SRT) within the bioreactor (Zhang, pg. 2, left column, Pr2-3).
67. Claim 28: the aerator is a moveable aerator (Hoxar, C3, L1-9, rotating) mounted in the inner tube (see air in Fig. 1, pg. 2, left column, last Pr, gas sprayer introduces gas bubbles into inner tube of reaction zone).
68. Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication A New Developed Airlift Reactor Integrated Settling Process and Its Application for Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification Nitrogen Removal (‘Zhang’, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, The ScientificWorld Journal, Volume 2013, Article ID 345725, 7 pages), Publication Treatment of petrochemical wastewater by microaerobic hydrolysis and anoxic/oxic processes and analysis of bacterial diversity (‘Yang’, Bioresource Technology 196 (2015) 169–175), Publication Biological CNP removal from meat-processing wastewater in an innovative high rate up-flow A2O bioreactor (‘Abyar’, Chemosphere 213 (2018) 197-204) and U.S. Patent US5624580A (‘Hoxar’) as applied to claim 17 above for Claim 20 and over Publication A New Developed Airlift Reactor Integrated Settling Process and Its Application for Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification Nitrogen Removal (‘Zhang’, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, The ScientificWorld Journal, Volume 2013, Article ID 345725, 7 pages), U.S. Patent US5624580A (‘Hoxar’) and U.S. Patent US5624562A (‘Scroggins’) as applied to claim 24 above for Claim 25, and further in view of UK Publication GB2456836A (‘Phattaranawik’).
69. The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method and an apparatus.
70. Regarding Claims 20 and 25, the combination of Zhang, Yang, Abyar and Hoxar teaches the method of Claim 17 and the combination of Zhang, Hoxar and Scroggins teaches the bioreactor of Claim 24, except a second feeding port disposed in an anoxic part in the bottom region of the bioreactor to allow availability of substrate for microorganisms attached therein and for introducing anoxic conditions thereof.
71. Phattaranawik also relates to a method for treating wastewater (pg. 1, L3-4) in an anaerobic-anoxic-oxic single stage bioreactor (pg. 1, L6-10), including a second feeding port (pg. 6, L18-pg. 7, L6, one or more feedwater inlets) disposed in an anoxic part in the bottom region of the bioreactor (pg. 6, L30-pg, 7, L6, anoxic/anaerobic reaction zone in a lower portion of said reactor) to allow availability of substrate in the wastewater for microorganisms attached therein (Fig. 1, pg. 9, L19-26, feedwater flow distributor 11) and for introducing anoxic conditions thereof (pg. 10, L2-11).
72. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combinations of Zhang, Yang, Abyar and Hoxar and of Zhang, Hoxar and Scroggins to comprise a second feeding port disposed in an anoxic part in the bottom region of the bioreactor to allow availability of substrate in the wastewater for microorganisms attached therein and for introducing anoxic conditions thereof, as demonstrated by Phattaranawik, to ensure that the feedwater flow is well-distributed before flowing through the anoxic part (Phattaranawik, pg. 9, L19-22) to allow for good distribution of carbon to be consumed by the anoxic biological material within the anoxic part (Phattaranawik, pg. 9, L22-26), as the carbon in the feedwater serves as a carbon source for the reaction (Phattaranawik, pg. 10, L9-11).
73. Claims 29-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication A New Developed Airlift Reactor Integrated Settling Process and Its Application for Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification Nitrogen Removal (‘Zhang’, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, The ScientificWorld Journal, Volume 2013, Article ID 345725, 7 pages) in view of U.S. Patent US5624580A (‘Hoxar’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US5624562A (‘Scroggins’) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US7396453B1 (‘Probst’).
74. The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
75. Regarding Claims 29-30, the combination of Zhang, Hoxar and Scroggins teaches a system comprising the bioreactor of claim 24 (see analysis of Claim 24), except a membrane separator module for further purifying the liquid effluent, wherein the membrane separator module is an ultrafiltration membrane in a crossflow membrane configuration to produce a clarified liquid effluent.
76. Probst also relates to a system comprising a bioreactor (abstract), further comprising a membrane separator module (Fig. 3A, C12, L1-11, solids/liquid separation system 324 is preferably a configuration of membrane modules) for further purifying the liquid effluent (C12, L1-11), wherein the membrane separator module is an ultrafiltration membrane (C12, L1-11) in a crossflow membrane configuration (C12, L22-28) to produce a clarified liquid effluent (C1. L44-48, solids/liquid separator acts as a clarifier to remove separated solids from the liquid).
77. 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 membrane separator module that is an ultrafiltration membrane in a crossflow membrane configuration, as demonstrated by Probst, in the system of the combination of Zhang, Hoxar and Scroggins, to affect separation of solids from the treated effluent (Probst, C12, L1-11) while preventing build-up of solids on the membrane to maintain desired operating pressure and/or to achieve the optimal membrane flux (Probst, C12, L19-28).
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 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