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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) and further in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), and Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Locklair teaches a wastewater treatment system for mixing wastewater (¶4) in a containment unit (2), the system comprising:
a source (8) of pressurized gas (¶25),
one or more supply headers (18) in connection with the source of pressurized gas,
one or more mixing nozzles (30) on each of the supply headers, wherein each nozzle is connected to a supply header and each nozzle is configured with at least one release opening (40) for introducing a burst of gas to mix the wastewater,
a pressure sensor (15) that measures pressure (¶26), and
a controller (20) configured to adjust mixing of wastewater (¶26).
Locklair does not teach:
a pressure sensor that measures pressure in one or more of the one or more supply headers based on the total pressure of liquid content in the containment unit that represents the total liquid depth in the containment unit, and
a controller configured to adjust delivery of gas to the mixing nozzle to control as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor.
Nawathe teaches a wastewater treatment system (col 1 lines 5-15) in a containment unit (24 in Fig 3) comprising a pressure sensor (36) that measures pressure in one or more of the one or more supply headers based on the total pressure of liquid content in the containment unit that represents the total liquid depth in the containment unit (col 10 lines 28-33; col 15 lines 21-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the pressure sensor (36) of Nawathe in order to monitor the liquid level based on the diffuser pressure (col 10 lines 28-33; col 15 lines 21-40).
Qi teaches wastewater aeration (¶6) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration intensity/volume to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (¶7).
Zhang teaches wastewater aeration (¶4) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration pressure according to the liquid depth (¶28) because the oxygen capacity and power efficiency are related to the liquid level depth (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the controller configured to adjust the mixing/aeration/delivery of gas to the mixing nozzle as a function of determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment basin (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (Qi ¶7) and in order to optimize aeration based on the oxygen capacity and power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31).
The modification would have resulted in a controller (Locklair 20) configured to adjust delivery of gas to the mixing nozzle to control as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater (as taught by Qi and Zhang) in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor (Nawathe teaches liquid level determination based on the pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the pressure sensor is positioned outside of the containment unit.
Nawathe teaches wherein the pressure sensor is positioned outside of the containment unit (col 12 lines 61-66) in order to be easily accessible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the pressure sensor positioned outside of the containment unit (col 12 lines 61-66) of Nawathe in order to be easily accessible.
Regarding claim 9, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor
Nawathe teaches a wastewater treatment system (col 1 lines 5-15) in a containment unit (24 in Fig 3) wherein the controller is configured to determine a total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor (col 10 lines 28-33; col 15 lines 21-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller (20) of Locklair by configuring the controller to determine a total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor (col 10 lines 28-33; col 15 lines 21-40) of Nawathe in order to monitor the liquid level based on the diffuser pressure (col 10 lines 28-33; col 15 lines 21-40).
Regarding claim 10, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the mixing intensity as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor.
Qi teaches wastewater aeration (¶6) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing intensity via aeration intensity/volume as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (¶7).
Zhang teaches wastewater aeration (¶4) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust the mixing intensity via aeration as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit (¶28) because the oxygen capacity and power efficiency are related to the liquid level depth (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the controller configured to adjust the mixing/aeration as a function of a determined total liquid depth of the wastewater in the containment unit (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (Qi ¶7) and in order to optimize aeration based on the oxygen capacity and power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31).
The modification would have resulted in a controller (Locklair 20) configured to adjust the mixing intensity as a function of a determined total liquid depth of wastewater in the containment unit (as taught by Qi and Zhang) based on the total pressure measurement by the pressure sensor (Nawathe teaches liquid level determination based on the pressure sensor).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), and Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shuibin CN200974792 published 14 Nov. 2007 as translated by EPO (hereafter Shuibin)
Regarding claim 2, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to start and terminate a supply of pressurized gas to the one or more mixing nozzles for mixing the wastewater based upon the determined total liquid depth in the tank.
Shuibin teaches teaches wastewater aeration (¶11) wherein the controller is configured to start and terminate the system equipment based upon the determined total liquid depth in the tank in order not to run the equipment at low liquid levels (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the start/terminate control of Shuibin (¶14) in order to avoid operating the equipment at low liquid levels (¶14). Additionally, the start/terminate could avoid equipment damage by preventing the operation in low liquid levels.
The modification would have resulted in wherein the controller is configured to start and terminate a supply of pressurized gas to the one or more mixing nozzles for mixing the wastewater based upon the determined total liquid depth in the tank.
Regarding claim 3, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, Zhang, and Shuibin teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the supply of pressurized gas to one or more supply headers based upon the determined total liquid depth in the tank.
Qi teaches wastewater aeration (¶6) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration intensity/volume to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (¶7).
Zhang teaches wastewater aeration (¶4) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration pressure according to the liquid depth (¶28) because the oxygen capacity and power efficiency are related to the liquid level depth (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the controller configured to adjust the supply of pressurized gas to the supply headers based on the determined total liquid depth (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (Qi ¶7) and in order to optimize aeration based on the oxygen capacity and power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang), and Shuibin CN200974792 published 14 Nov. 2007 as translated by EPO (hereafter Shuibin)
as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Schmit et al. US 6,475,395 (hereafter Schmit) and Frey et al. US 2011/0200453 (hereafter Frey).
Regarding claim 4, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, Zhang, and Shuibin teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Locklair does not teach wherein the system is configured to adjust the supply of pressurized gas to one or more supply headers to maintain substantially consistent mixing of the wastewater despite fluctuations in the determined total liquid depth in the tank.
Qi teaches wastewater aeration (¶6) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration intensity/volume to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (¶7).
Zhang teaches wastewater aeration (¶4) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration pressure according to the liquid depth (¶28) because the oxygen capacity and power efficiency are related to the liquid level depth (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the controller configured to adjust the supply of pressurized gas to maintain substantially consistent mixing of the wastewater despite fluctuations in the determined total liquid depth in the tank (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (Qi ¶7) and in order to optimize aeration based on the oxygen capacity and power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31).
Schmit teaches a wastewater treatment system (col 6 line 65 – col 9 line 23) where the gas pressure can be changed to accommodate a liquid level (col 14 lines 55-62) and where the dynamic wet pressure can be held constant (col 15 lines 9-27).
Frey teaches where a wastewater treatment system (Fig 2) where a constant air flow is desired (¶1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the constant airflow (Frey ¶1-3) and/or the dynamic wet pressure (Schmit col 15 lines 9-27) in order to maintain treatment.
The modification would have resulted in wherein the system is configured to adjust the supply of pressurized gas to one or more supply headers to maintain substantially consistent mixing of the wastewater despite fluctuations in the determined total liquid depth in the tank.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), and Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Juntao CN105936545 published 14 Sep. 2016 as translated by EPO (hereafter Juntao)
Regarding claim 5, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to generate an alert in response to the pressure sensor indicating a pressure measurement indicative of a fault.
Juntao teaches wastewater aeration (¶46) wherein the controller is configured to generate an alert in response to a high or low liquid level instance (¶48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the alert in response to high and low liquid level instances (Juntao ¶48) in order to alert the user of high and low liquid level conditions (Juntao ¶48).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the controller is configured to generate an alert in response to the pressure sensor indicating a pressure measurement indicative of a fault where the fault is low or high liquid level conditions which would be sensed by the pressure sensor sensing liquid depth.
Regarding claim 6, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, Zhang, and Juntao teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach wherein the controller is configured to initiate an automatic correction in response to the pressure sensor indicating a pressure measurement indicative of a fault.
Juntao teaches wastewater aeration (¶46) wherein the controller is configured to generate an alert in response to a high or low liquid level instance (¶48) and wherein the controller is configured to initiate an automatic correction in response to the high or low level conditions indicative of a fault (¶48, where the valve/pump is adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the controller is configured to initiate an automatic correction in response to a fault (Juntao ¶48) in order to compensate for high and low liquid level conditions (Juntao ¶48).
The modification would have resulted in the controller configured to initiate an automatic correction in response to the pressure sensor indicating a pressure measurement indicative of a fault where the fault is low or high liquid level conditions which would be sensed by the pressure sensor sensing liquid depth.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), and Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Schmit et al. US 6,475,395 (hereafter Schmit).
Regarding claim 7, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Locklair does not teach wherein the automatic correction comprises a maintenance purge.
Schmit teaches a wastewater treatment system (col 6 line 65 – col 9 line 23) where the gas pressure is monitored an automatic correction comprises a maintenance purge in order to avoid fouling (col 13 lines 13-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the maintenance purge (col 13 lines 13-54) of Schmit in order to avoid fouling (col 13 lines 13-54).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locklair et al US 2014/0183129 (hereafter Locklair) in view of Nawathe et al. US 5,647,986 (hereafter Nawathe), Qi CN1837086 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Qi), and Zhang CN1837085 published 27 Sep. 2006 as translated by EPO (hereafter Zhang) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ladislav et al WO2016175710 published 3 Nov. 2016 (hereafter Ladislav).
Regarding claim 11, Locklair in view of Nawathe, Qi, and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Locklair does not teach further comprising aeration devices in the containment unit that are distinct and independent from the one or more mixing nozzles, wherein the system is configured to control mixing based on the total tank level independently of controlling aeration in the containment unit.
Ladislav teaches wastewater treatment comprising aerators (air blowers) and mixing units which are operated independently and are distinct (page 31 Example No. 6) and where the mixing units are compressed air (page 1 lines 1-40).
Qi teaches wastewater aeration (¶6) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration intensity/volume to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (¶7).
Zhang teaches wastewater aeration (¶4) comprising an aerator where the controller is configured to adjust mixing of wastewater via aeration pressure according to the liquid depth (¶28) because the oxygen capacity and power efficiency are related to the liquid level depth (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Locklair (Fig 2) by incorporating the aeration devices and mixing nozzles (page 31 Example No. 6) of Ladislav in order to independently control the mixing and aeration (page 31 Example No. 6), where it would have been obvious to control the aerator
as a function of determined total liquid depth (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to maintain a constant air volume to water volume ratio for proper aeration (Qi ¶7) and in order to optimize aeration based on the oxygen capacity and power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31) and where it would have been obvious to control the mixing aerator as a function of determined total liquid depth (Qi ¶7; Zhang ¶28) in order to optimize power efficiency at a liquid level depth (Zhang ¶31).
The modification would have resulted in further comprising aeration devices in the containment unit that are distinct and independent from the one or more mixing nozzles, wherein the system is configured to control mixing based on the total tank level independently of controlling aeration in the containment unit.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 10 Mar. 2026:
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues Locklair discloses a system having mixing nozzles 30 and separate aerators 60.
Examiner agrees that the embodiment of Fig 10 does disclose a system having mixing nozzles 30 and separate aerators 60, however the embodiment is not relied upon in the rejection. The rejection refers to the Fig 1 embodiment which has only nozzles 30 and does not have separate aerators 60.
Further, the prior teaches (namely Zhang) where the mixing can be performed by the aerators.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776