DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 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 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Moon control device does not adjust dosage into or prior to the primary clarifier based on measurements from both a measuring unit that is arranged to measure the turbidity and a second measuring device. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is not based on Moon alone. The rejection is based on Moon in view of Criswell. Criswell teaches adjusting the dosage based on the first measuring device. And it would have been obvious to modify Moon with Criswell to adjust the dosage based on both measurements.
The applicant argues that Moon does not teach a separate biological process. This argument is not persuasive because Moon teaches a clarifier 240 and biological reactors 210 and 220. As these are separate reactors there is a separate biological process (see fig. 8, para. 0093).
The applicant argues that Criswell does not teach a separate biological process. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is made in view of Moon and Criswell and is not based on Criswell teaching a separate biological process.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2008/0314841) in view of Criswell (USPN 9,682,872).
Regarding Claim 1:
Moon teaches the control system (control device 100) (see para. 0057) of a wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater treatment comprising at least a primary treatment process to remove solid material (primary clarifier 240) (see para. 0093) and a secondary treatment process (biological reactors 210 and 220), wherein the control system comprises a measuring unit that is configured to measure turbidity or suspended solids (see para. 0058), and a second measuring unit that is configured to measure a nitrate level or a redox value in an denitrification zone of the secondary treatment process (see para. 0058, 0102), and a control unit (control device) that is configured to receive measurements, from the measuring unit and the second measuring unit, and also configured to form control signals for dosing at least one chemical (control dosing of O2) (see para. 0106-0110) and adjusting said control signals for dosing based on the measurements from the second measuring unit to control load of organic matter to the secondary process (controlling the load of organic material is the intended use, as the system controls the addition of chemicals, when modified by Criswell, the organic load will also be controlled).
Moon does not teach that the measuring unit configured to measure turbidity or suspended solids of the wastewater is before or in the primary treatment process or the control unit arranged for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process, or into the primary treatment process, taking into account wastewater condition based on the measurements from the measuring unit to reduce suspended solids in the primary process wherein the control unit is configured to use measurements form the second measuring unit to prevent over-dosing of the at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into the influent of the primary treatment process.
Criswell teaches a control system (controller 100) (see col. 6 lines 39-40) for a wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater treatment comprising at least a primary treatment process to remove solid material (tank 30 can be a clarifier) (see col. 6 lines 34-38) and a secondary treatment process (effluent enters a sewage system which will be treated by a secondary treatment process or some kind, it is noted that the claims are directed to the control system, not the wastewater treatment plant) (see col. 1 lines 23-27), wherein the control system comprises a measuring unit that is configured to measure turbidity or suspended solids (second turbidity meter 160) that is configured to measure turbidity of the wastewater before the primary treatment process (see col. 7 lines 18-24), the control unit configured for dosing at least one chemical (coagulant or polymer) prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process, or into the primary treatment process (see col. 7 lines 25-30), taking into account wastewater condition based on the measurements from the measuring unit to reduce suspended solids in the primary process (coupled to the outputs of the controller) (see col. 7 lines 34-35) to control the load of organic matter to the secondary process (controls COD) (see col. 1 lines 23-27) wherein the control unit is configured to use measurements to prevent over-dosing of the at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into the influent of the primary treatment process (determine the proper balance of chemicals) (see col. 2 lines 64-65).
Moon and Criswell are analogous inventions in the art of water treatment control systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the turbidity measuring unit of Criswell to measure the turbidity of the clarifier (primary treatment) of Moon and modify the control unit of Moon to adjust the dose of treatment chemical into the primary treatment, as disclosed by Criswell because it insures the proper balance of treatment chemicals (see Criswell col. 2 lines 59-65) and Moon finds it desirable to make adjustments based on a multiple measurements (see para. 0028). Further it is the simple addition of a known sensor and control function to a known control system, obviously resulting in the adjustment of coagulant and polymer to the clarifier, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The combination further teaches the control unit is configured to use measurements from the second measuring unit are used to prevent over-dosing of the at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into the influent of the primary treatment process because Moon teaches that all the measured values are used to make adjustments (see Moon para. 0058, 0061). As the control unit uses all the measurements to make control decisions the measurements form the second measuring unis are used to prevent over-dosing. The claims do not limit how over-dosing is prevented or how the measurements are used by the control system.
Regarding Claim 2:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to dose at least two chemicals (polymer and coagulant) (see Criswell col. 7 Lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 3:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 1, the control unit is configured to dose coagulant, or polymer, or any combination of them, optionally together with another chemical (see Criswell col. 7 lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 4:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a third measuring unit that is configured to measure a phosphorus (phosphate) (see Moon para. 0058) level in an effluent of the secondary treatment process, or in an effluent of the primary treatment process (sensor in secondary treatment process is the effluent from the primary treatment process) (see Moon para. 0102), and the control unit is further configured to receive measurements from the third measuring, and use these measurements when forming control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process, or into the primary treatment process (all values are validated therefore they are used to form the control signal) (see Moon para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 5:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 4, wherein the control unit is configured to dose at least two chemicals, the two chemicals being coagulant, or polymer, or any combination of them, optionally together with another chemical, the polymer dosing utilizing the measurements from the measuring unit (see Criswell col. 7 lines 28-30), and the coagulant dosing utilizing measurements from the third measuring unit or measurements from the third measuring unit and the measurements from the second measuring unit (all values are validated therefore they are used to form the control signal) (see Moon para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 6:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 4, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to set threshold values for maximum and minimum dosage/s (see col. 8 lines 21-31) based on phosphorus level (see Moon para. 0058)in an effluent of the secondary treatment process (phosphorous is measured therefore the value is “based” on the level).
Regarding Claim 7:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to wherein the system further comprises a fourth measuring unit that is configured to measure a suspended solid or turbidity level in an effluent of the primary treatment process, or a fifth measuring unit that is arranged to measure a COD or BOD (COD and BOD) (see Moon para. 0058) or TOC values in an effluent of the primary treatment process, or the both fourth measuring unit and fifth measuring unit, and the control unit is further configured to receive measurements from the fourth measuring unit or the fifth measuring unit, or the both fourth measuring unit and fifth measuring unit, and also arranged to use these measurements when forming control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment (3) or into an influent of the primary treatment process 3), or into the primary treatment process 3), and for adjusting said dosing (see Moon para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 8:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim1, wherein the control unit is configured to provide enough carbon for the denitrification (controls return activated sludge) (see Moon para. 0126).
Regarding Claim 9:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according claim 4, wherein the control unit is configured to dose at least two chemicals, the two chemicals being coagulant, or polymer, or any combination of them (see Criswell col. 7 lines 25-30), optionally together with another chemical, the polymer dosing utilizing at least the measurements from the second measuring unit, and the coagulant dosing utilizing measurements from the third measuring unit (all measurements are used) (See Moon para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 10:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system it further comprises a sixth measuring unit that is configured to measure an ammonium nitrogen level (see Moon para. 0063) in an effluent of the primary treatment process (inside the secondary treatment is the effluent from the primary treatment) (see Moon para. 0102), and the control unit is further configured to receive measurements from the sixth measuring unit, and also configured to use these measurements when forming control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process or into the primary treatment process, and for adjusting said dosing (see Moon para. 0063).
Regarding Claim 11:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system further comprises a seventh measuring unit that is configured to measure an ammonium level in an aeration zone of the secondary treatment process (see Moon para. 0063, 0102) and the control unit is further configured to receive measurements from the seventh measuring unit, and also arranged to use these measurements when forming control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process or into the primary treatment process, and for adjusting said dosing (all control signals are used) (see Moon para. 0078).
Regarding Claim 12:
Moon, as modified, teaches the control system according claim4, wherein the control system further comprises at least one further measuring unit and the control unit further configured to receive measurements from at least one further measuring unit (see Moon para, 0058), and also configured to use these measurements when forming control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process or into the primary treatment process, and for adjusting said dosing (all control signals are used) (see Moon para. 0078).
Regarding Claim 13:
Moon teaches the control system according to claim 1.
Criswell further teaches wherein the control system comprises also a flow meter (flow transmitter) that is configured to measure a wastewater flow into the wastewater treatment plant, and a control unit that is arranged to receive measurements also from the flow meter, and also arranged to form control signals for dosing at least one chemical prior to the primary treatment or into an influent of the primary treatment process or into the primary treatment process, utilizing also the measurements from the flow meter (see Criswell claim 1, fig. 1).
It would have further been obvious to add the flow meter and control of Criswell to the control system of Moon because it allows the proper balance of additives to be supplied (see Criswell col. 3 lines 55-60).
Conclusion
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 2/11/2026