DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 28, 29, and 31-33 are pending.
Claims 28 and 32 are amended.
This action is made final.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of Pilgram and Jenkins does not teach or render obvious “the anticipated flow rate is determined responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event and a predicted sewerage event”. This argument is not persuasive because Jenkins teaches operating a sequencing batch reactor responsive to at least a predicted sewerage event (“weather conditions”, “weather conditions such as rain may dilute influent wastewater”) (see Jenkins para. 0052, 0059). As the rain changes the quality and quantity of the incoming wastewater (sewage) weather conditions correspond to a predicted sewerage event. The claims do not limit what a “predicted sewerage event” is limited to, or how it is calculated/determined/quantified. The claims additionally do not limit how the influent flow rate is determined responsive to the predicted sewerage event.
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.
Claims 28, 29 and 32-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11472726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 28:
The claims of the patent disclose method of retrofitting (all the components are used with a sequencing batch reactor therefore retrofitting is inherent) (see claim 13) a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel and configured to operate in a batch flow mode, comprising: providing a controller configured to transmit an output signal to operate one or more reactor in a continuous flow mode responsive to an anticipated flowrate of the wastewater being greater than a design hydraulic loading rate of the plurality of the reactors and the one or more reactor being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater in the continuous flow mode; operably connecting the controller to a loading subsystem of the sequencing batch reactor system configured to control a hydraulic loading rate of wastewater independently into each of the reactors; and operably connecting the controller to an anticipated flow rate analyzer (controller can “determine an anticipated flow rate”, therefore there is an analyzer) configured to transmit a second input signal to the controller to determine the anticipated flow rate (see claim 13) wherein the anticipated flow rate is determined responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event, a predicted sewerage event (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 29:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of claim 28, further comprising operably connecting the controller to a measuring subsystem of the sequencing batch reactor system configured to measure a parameter of each of the reactors and transmit a first input signal to the controller to determine the state of each of the reactors (see claim 14).
Regarding Claim 32:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of facilitating treatment (treating) of wastewater with a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel and configured to operate in a batch flow mode, comprising: providing the sequencing batch reactor system; providing a controller configured to: operate the plurality of the reactors in a batch flow mode; determine an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater at an inlet of the reactors for a first period of time to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of the reactors wherein the anticipated flow rate is responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event, a predicted sewerage even, time of day, time of year, and geographic location (see claim 1); select one or more reactor as being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater in a continuous flow mode; and operate the one or more selected reactor in the continuous flow mode (see claim 1), such that after a second period of time the plurality of the reactors are all operating in the continuous flow mode; operably connecting the controller to the sequencing batch reactor system to determine the state of each of the reactors and control a hydraulic loading rate of wastewater independently into each of the reactors; fluidly connecting an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system to a source of the wastewater (see claim 1); and instructing a user to operate the sequencing batch reactor system to treat the wastewater (claim is directed to a method of treating water, therefore a user of some kind is inherent).
Regarding Claim 33:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of claim 32, further comprising providing an anticipated flow rate analyzer configured to determine the anticipated flow rate and operably connecting the controller to the anticipated flow rate analyzer (flow rate is determined, therefore an analyzer is inherent) (see claim 13).
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.
Claim(s) 28, 29, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilgram et al (USPN 6,383,389) in view of Jenkins et al (US 2012/0085704).
Regarding Claim 28:
Pilgram teaches the method of retrofitting (see col. 4 lines 24-27) a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel and configured to operate in a batch flow mode (four SBRs series or parallel) (see col. 11 lines 46-50 col. 8 lines 5-6), comprising: providing a controller (controller 82) configured to transmit an output signal (see col. 6 lines 23-25) to operate one or more reactor in a continuous flow mode responsive to an anticipated flowrate of the wastewater being greater than a design hydraulic loading rate(flow-transition set point) of the plurality of the reactors and the one or more reactor being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater in the continuous flow mode (reactors receive a continuous flow, therefore they are in a condition to receive it) (see col. 8 lines 17-24); operably connecting the controller to a loading subsystem (connection to valves) of the sequencing batch reactor system configured to control a hydraulic loading rate of wastewater independently into each of the reactors (throttle or close valves) (see col. 10 lines 59-62); and operably connecting the controller to an anticipated flow rate analyzer (part of system that calculates the influent flow rate, flow meter) configured to transmit a second input signal to the controller to determine the anticipated flow rate (see col. 6 lines 10-12, col. 6 lines 55-57).
Pilgram does not explicitly teach wherein the anticipated flow rate is responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event and a predicted sewerage event.
Jenkins teaches a method for operating a sequencing batch reactor (see para. 0062), wherein operation of the controlled is responsive to at least a predicted sewerage event (“weather conditions”, “weather conditions such as rain may dilute influent wastewater”) (see Jenkins para. 0052, 0059).
Pilgram and Jenkins are analogous inventions in the art of sequencing batch reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the predictive control based on time of day disclosed by Jenkins to the anticipated flow rate determination of Pilgram because it allows control cycles to be scheduled (See Jenkins para. 0060). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 29:
Pilgram teaches the method of claim 28, further comprising operably connecting the controller to a measuring subsystem (composition analyzer) of the sequencing batch reactor system configured to measure a parameter of each of the reactors and transmit a first input signal to the controller to determine the state of each of the reactors (see col. 6 lines 65-66).
Regarding Claim 31:
Pilgram teaches the method of claim 29, wherein operably connecting the controller to the loading subsystem comprises operably connecting the controller to an input valve and an output valve of the reactor (valves 32 and 78) (see col. 6 lines 23-28), the controller being configured to independently control a loading rate of wastewater into the reactor and a decanting rate of water out of the reactor responsive to the first input signal wherein the parameter is process water composition (inputs are dependent on composition) (see col. 6 lines 64-66).
Pilgram does not explicitly teach that each reactor of the plurality of reactors has an input valves and output valve. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the controlled input valve and output valve, resulting in independent control of each reactor, because it is the simple duplication of parts (valves connected to the controlled), without any unexpected results. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 32:
Pilgram teaches the method of facilitating treatment of wastewater with a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel and configured to operate in a batch flow mode (four SBRs series or parallel) (see col. 11 lines 46-50 col. 8 lines 5-6), comprising: providing the sequencing batch reactor system (see col. 11 lines 46-50); providing a controller configured to: operate the plurality of the reactors in a batch flow mode (see col. 8 lines 22-26); determine an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater at an inlet of the reactors for a first period of time to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of the reactors (above transition set-point) (see col. 8 lines 18-20); select one or more reactor as being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater in a continuous flow mode (see col. 8 lines 18-22); and operate the one or more selected reactor in the continuous flow mode, such that after a second period of time the plurality of the reactors are all operating in the continuous flow mode (all reactors are transitioned past the nominal flow rate) (see col. 11 lines 55-60); operably connecting the controller to the sequencing batch reactor system to determine the state of each of the reactors and control a hydraulic loading rate of wastewater independently into each of the reactors (throttle of valves) (see col. 10 lines 55-65); fluidly connecting an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system to a source of the wastewater (wastewater to be treated) (see fig. 1); and instructing a user to operate the sequencing batch reactor system to treat the wastewater (system has a keypad and is operated, therefore a user is inherently instructed to operate the SBR) (see col. 6 lines 65-67).
Pilgram does not explicitly teach wherein the anticipated flow rate is responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event and a predicted sewerage event.
Jenkins teaches a method for operating a sequencing batch reactor (see para. 0062), wherein operation of the controlled is responsive to at least a predicted sewerage event (“weather conditions”, “weather conditions such as rain may dilute influent wastewater”) (see Jenkins para. 0052, 0059).
Pilgram and Jenkins are analogous inventions in the art of sequencing batch reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the predictive control based on time of day disclosed by Jenkins to the anticipated flow rate determination of Pilgram because it allows control cycles to be scheduled (See Jenkins para. 0060). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 33:
Pilgram teaches the method of claim 32, further comprising providing an anticipated flow rate analyzer (flow meter) configured to determine the anticipated flow rate and operably connecting the controller to the anticipated flow rate analyzer (provides an input to the controller) (see col. 6 lines 55-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tajika et al (US 2016/0184742), which teaches control of a water treatment system based on predicted rain (weather) (see para. 0069, 0070). Schutzbach (US 2002/0170350) which teaches that a measured increase in rain is indicative of an anticipated flow (see para. 0007).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 3/23/2026