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 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, claims 10-20 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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) 1-3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US2017/0081225A1, hereinafter Yeh.
Regarding Claim 1, Yeh teaches a wastewater treatment plant comprising:
an anaerobic membrane bioreactor, AnMBR, unit (“wastewater treatment systems can be fit within such small containers in part because the systems use an anaerobic reactor in conjunction with a membrane filter ( commonly referred to as an anaerobic membrane bioreactor)”, [0022]) configured to receive wastewater and to produce (1) a final permeate (“which organic material within the wastewater can be broken down… to produce permeate”, Abstract) and (2) a gas (“As the organic material in the wastewater is broken down, biogas is generated that fills a head space 38 of the reactor 12”, [0028]),
wherein the AnMBR unit includes (A) a first stage module that generates a part of the gas (Fig. 1 Element 12), and (B) a second stage module, having one or more membranes, (Fig. 1 Element 14);
;
and an energy recovery unit (Fig. 1 Element 22) configured to receive the gas from the AnMBR unit and generate electrical energy [0029],
While the Fig. 1 embodiment of Yeh does not explicitly teach the second stage module generates another part of the gas, the Fig. 5 embodiment of Yeh teaches the second stage module 14 configured to generate a part of the gas in headspace 38.
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Yeh is considered analogous art because Yeh addresses the same problem of wastewater treatment via anaerobic digestion, filtration, and oxidation disinfection, producing biogas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to either configure the second module of Fig. 1 within the reactor of Fig. 1, use multiple Fig. 5 reactors as the first and second stage modules, or combine the Fig. 1 first stage module with the Fig. 5 embodiment of the second stage module. Doing so would allow for an extended amount of headspace to collect biogas, which would have an expected effect on biogas collection efficacy.
While Yeh teaches an oxidation disinfection unit is optional, Yeh suggests an oxidation disinfection unit configured to receive the final permeate and to remove biological and chemical contaminants from the final permeate to generate a final effluent (“In some cases, it may be desirable to disinfect or otherwise "polish" the permeate. In such case, the optional disinfection system 24 can be used for this purpose. The disinfection system 24 can be configured to use any one or more of a number of disinfection processes, such as electrochlorination, chlorination, ultraviolet exposure, catalysis, and other advanced oxidation processes”, [0031]).
Yeh suggests alternative oxidation disinfection units wherein the wastewater treatment plant does not use chlorination (“The disinfection system 24 can be configured to use any one or more of a number of disinfection processes, such as electrochlorination, chlorination, ultraviolet exposure, catalysis, and other advanced oxidation processes”, [0031], chlorination is merely described as one option among others).
Yeh also provides motivation for utilizing biogas “As described below, the disclosed portable wastewater treatment systems are, in some embodiments, designed to be used "off the grid" in locations in which no consistent source of electric power exists to operate the system. In such cases, the systems are not only self-contained but are further self-sustaining. In some embodiments, biogas produced in the treatment process is recovered and used to heat the wastewater prior to treatment and/or to generate electricity used to actuate pumps of the system” [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the Yeh embodiment containing the oxidation disinfection unit appropriate for the design needs, size constraints, and wastewater components of the system while also using the generated biogas of the system as an energy generating source. Doing so would “generate electricity used to actuate pumps of the system” where “no consistent source of electric power exists” (Yeh [0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yeh teaches there are no sedimentation clarifiers (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yeh teaches the AnMBR unit comprises:
the first stage module configured to hold microorganism selected to anaerobically convert organic carbon from the wastewater into the part of the gas and generate an initial permeate (Fig. 1 Element 12);
and the second stage module configured to receive the initial permeate and remove plural chemicals by using the one or more membranes (Fig. 1 Element 14).
Regarding Claim 6, Yeh teaches a gas storage unit configured to store the gas (Fig. 1 Element 16);
and a gas burning unit configured to burn the gas and generate electrical energy (“the biogas system 22 can comprise an electric generator in which the biogas is used to generate electricity that can be used to power an electric heater of the heat exchanger 20 or power the various pumps of the portable wastewater treatment system 10”, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, an embodiment of Yeh teaches an electrical storage unit configured to store the electrical energy generated by the gas burning unit (“the biogas system 22 can comprise an electric generator in which the biogas is used to generate electricity that can be used to power an electric heater of the heat exchanger 20 or power the various pumps of the portable wastewater treatment system 10”, [0028]; “multiple batteries 56 that can be used to store energy created by a generator”, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include batteries in the system. Doing so would store electricity for use in locations where “no consistent source of electric power exists” (Yeh [0023]).
Regarding Claim 8, an embodiment of Yeh supports a solar panel configured to generate electrical energy (“a source of renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, is integrated into the wastewater treatment system to provide heat and/or electricity to the system”, [0023]), wherein the solar panel is electrically connected to the electrical storage unit (“both biogas and renewable energy are utilized to account for times in which either is in short supply”, [0023]; “external photovoltaic panels 94 that are mounted on top of the quadcon 92 that generate electricity that can be used to power the system's heat exchanger and/or pumps. As noted above, this electricity can be stored within batteries of the system 90 to power the system when the sun is not shining”, [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine biogas and solar power as sources of energy. Doing so would “account for times in which either is in short supply” (Yeh [0023]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yeh in view of JP 2002339203 A, hereinafter Ishio, further in view of WO 03/10635, hereinafter Sasol.
Regarding Claim 4, Yeh supports an ultra-violet, UV, generating unit located in a UV tank and configured to generate UV light to inflict damage to extracellular material present in the final permeate (“In some cases, it may be desirable to disinfect or otherwise "polish" the permeate. In such case, the optional disinfection system 24 can be used for this purpose. The disinfection system 24 can be configured to use any one or more of a number of disinfection processes, such as electrochlorination, chlorination, ultraviolet exposure, catalysis, and other advanced oxidation processes”, [0031])
Yeh does not positively teach UV combined with granular activated carbon.
However Sasol teaches “During the tertiary treatment stage residual organic species, not removed during the first and second treatment stages, may be removed by methods selected
from the group including: chemical oxidation using agents such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet light generated free radicals and adsorption/absorption processes including activated carbon treatment and organic scavenging resins” (p 13 ln 11-14).
Sasol is considered analogous art because Sasol addresses the same problem of polishing final effluent in a third stage after a biological treatment stage and a filtration stage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the oxidation disinfection unit and polishing techniques appropriate for the design needs, size constraints, and wastewater components of the system while also combining adsorption technologies for furthering polishing , as suggested in Sasol, to remove “residual organic species, not removed during the first and second treatment stages” (Sasol p 13 ln 11-14).
Regarding Claim 5, While Yeh is silent on a stirring device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to stir tanks to facilitate homogeneity and consistency in treatment.
Regarding Claim 9, While Yeh is silent on peroxide tanks, Yeh supports using advanced oxidative process [0031].
However Sasol teaches “During the tertiary treatment stage residual organic species, not removed during the first and second treatment stages, may be removed by methods selected
from the group including: chemical oxidation using agents such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet light generated free radicals and adsorption/absorption processes including activated carbon treatment and organic scavenging resins” (p 13 ln 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the oxidation disinfection unit and polishing techniques appropriate for the design needs, size constraints, and wastewater components of the system while also combining chemical oxidation agents for furthering polishing , as suggested in Sasol, to remove “residual organic species, not removed during the first and second treatment stages” (Sasol p 13 ln 11-14). Such a system would naturally require elements to facilitate chemical agent addition to the system, such as pumps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20050131086-A1, US-20080290045-A1, US-20160326031-A1, JP-2004167452-A, JP-2005536325-A, WO-2019094535-A1, US 20100264079 A1
Moser et al. Separation and Purification Technology 192 (2018) 176-184
S K Al-Amshawee and M Y M Yunus 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 702.012058
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 MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774