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 Status
The Amendment filed on 30 June 2026 has been entered; claims 1-20 remain pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7 of the Remarks, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 over Hoeferlin in view of Cort 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 13-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2008/039936, hereinafter “WO (‘936)”.
With respect to claims 1 and 16, WO (‘936) teaches a system for treating water, comprising: a method and system for treating water comprising (Figure 26 and description thereof described in the middle of Page 37 to Page 40 first paragraph): a ballast reactor tank having an inlet to receive water for treatment; reactor 81A and 81B with inlet 80 a source of magnetic ballast material fluidly connected to the ballast reactor tank; magnetic seed (see Page 38) a clarifier fluidly connected downstream of the ballast reactor tank, the clarifier having a treated effluent outlet and a ballasted solids outlet; magnetic floe form 81B flows into clarifier zone 81C with gravity separation device plates 69B. The slope of bottom 89 allows large magnetic floe to settle; this is equivalent to the "ballasted solids outlet" of claim 1, and clarified effluent is discharged (i.e. "treated effluent") (see Page 38, paragraph 2).
WO (‘936) teaches a magnetic separation system configured to recover magnetic ballast material downstream of the clarifier and return the recovered magnetic ballast material to the ballast reactor tank, the magnetic separation system comprising: a magnetic drum fluidly connected to the ballasted solids outlet of the clarifier, the magnetic drum having a waste solids outlet; magnetic cleaning system 86 which comprises a drum, which produces magnetic floc and clarified fluid (see Page 38 first paragraph). WO (‘936) further teaches returning the magnetic ballast (see Page 40 line 2; Page 41, first paragraph).
It is noted that even though in Figure 26 the cleaning system 86 is drawn in chamber 81B, it is still operating downstream of the clarifier zone 81C, because magnetic floe flow first to chamber 81C, and solids (large magnetic floe) then slide down back to chamber 81B, where it is treated by magnetic cleaning system 86 (see Page 39, first and second paragraph). Nevertheless, an additional magnetic collector is alternatively foreseen in zone 81C itself (Page 39, third paragraph). WO (‘936) teaches an in-line magnetic recovery device is fluidly connected to at least one of the waste solids outlet of the magnetic drum and the treated effluent outlet of the clarifier (see magnetic separator 88 in Fig. 26, which is connected to part of the lighter magnetic floe in chamber 81C “waste solids”, as well as to the effluent/clarified water which flows past the separator 88 to remove any remaining magnetic floe (see Page 38, paragraph 2).
With respect to claim 2, the material comprises magnetite (Page 9, paragraph 3, Page 35, last 3 lines).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the magnetite size is about 30-50 microns (Page 9, paragraph 4).
With respect to claims 5 and 7, the in-line device comprises an array of rotating magnetic discs (Page 38, last line).
With respect to claim 6, WO (‘936) teaches that a scraper is provided for both the in-line device 88 (Page 38 last line) as well as the cleaning system 86 (Page 38, first paragraph).
With respect to claim 13, WO (‘936) teaches that a shearing system is provided (Page 38, first paragraph).
With respect to claims 14 and 18, WO (‘936) teaches that a coagulant and flocculant may be provided to the ballasted tank (flocculant zone 81B, see page 37 last paragraph).
With respect to claim 15, as all technical features are present in the claim, the inherent result of recovering about 96-98% of ballast material is considered to be met. Assuming the Examiner is incorrect regarding this inherency argument, an alternative rejection of claim 15 is set forth below under 35 USC 103.
With respect to claim 19, WO (‘936) is devoid of any cleaning solution used for recovering ballast.
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.
Claims 8, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/039936, hereinafter “WO (‘936)”.
With respect to claim 8, WO (‘936) teaches another embodiment where the magnetic collectors are disposed as an array of magnets on a conveyor belt (see Page 15, second paragraph through Page 17, line 2; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the rotating magnetics discs/drums of the Fig. 26 embodiment of WO (‘936) with the magnetic conveyor belt embodiment of WO (‘936), as these embodiments are presented as equivalent or alternate arrangements for collecting magnetic ballast.
With respect to claims 12 and 17, WO (‘936) teaches that the ballast reactor tank receives wastewater from upstream processes including a clarifier (see Fig. 24, which shows three clarifiers in succession).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to consult the additional embodiments, including Fig. 24/retrofit embodiment, in order to determine appropriate systems wherein the Fig. 26 embodiment could be implemented.
With respect to claim 20, the Examiner submits that the limitations are inherently disclosed by WO (‘936), because both a magnetic drum and an in-line magnetic recovery device are implemented in water treatment system, and a method of retrofitting is also explicitly mentioned within an existing water treatment system (see Claims 11-13; and see Page 29, last 10 lines through Page 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to consult the additional embodiments, including Fig. 24/retrofit embodiment, in order to determine appropriate systems wherein the Fig. 26 embodiment could be implemented.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/039936 in view of Cort (U.S. Patent Publication # 2007/0039894), hereinafter "WO (‘936)” and “Cort”.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, WO (‘936) teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 16, but does not specifically teach an array of tubes as recited in claim 9, or recovery of "at least about 96 to about 98% of the magnetic ballast material downstream from the clarifier as recited in claim 15.
Cort teaches an array of cylindrical magnets 152 (Paragraph [0051]), and recovery of 90-100% of magnetic particles captured in a flowing stream (Paragraphs [0050, 0051; Figs. 3, 4; Abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnetic recovery device 88 of WO (‘936) with replacement or addition of an (additional) in-line magnetic recovery device at the outlet for treated effluent comprising the magnetic tubes of Cort because Cort teaches that the array of cylindrical magnets 152 acts to concentrate flow of magnetic particles in order to achieve efficient capture (90-100% of magnetic particles captured) in a flowing stream (Paragraphs [0050, 0051; Figs. 3, 4; Abstract).
WO (‘936) in view of Cort teaches 90-100% of magnetic particles captured, which is considered to meet or render obvious the claimed range of "about 96% to about 98%".
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/039936 in view of Cort (U.S. Patent Publication # 2007/0039894) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Sundt (U.S. Patent # 3941700), hereinafter "WO (‘936)", "Cort", and "Sundt".
With respect to claim 10, WO (‘936) in view of Cort renders obvious the limitations of claim 9, but does not specifically teach a vertical orientation of the tubes as claimed.
Sundt teaches vertically orientated magnet 10 (Column 2, lines 3-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify one or more of the magnetic tubes of Cort to have the vertical orientation of the magnet of Sundt, because Sundt teaches that the vertically orientated magnet is positioned within a flow of water for capture of magnetic particles therein (Column 2, lines 3-17), which prevents corrosion and precipitation of dissolved substances (Abstract) which the ordinary artisan would have recognized would be beneficial especially to the piping that directs the clarified water from solids/liquid separation/clarifier 1200 of WO (‘936) in view of Cort, which may contain residual magnetic particles.
Regarding claim 11, WO (‘936) in view of Cort and Sundt do not specifically teach that the magnetic tubes are arranged at a slant as claimed; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to arrange the magnetic tubes of Cort to direct the magnetic particles accordingly in view of the teachings of Cort and Sundt, which would allow for more directional control of the magnetic particles within the fluid channel towards a concentrated region as taught in Figs. 3 and 4 of Cort, and the cavity in the piping comprising vertically oriented magnet 10 of Sundt. Especially in view of Cort, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that slanted magnets would help to control the flow of magnetic particles within various portions of piping, which would not always be straight in existing wastewater treatment systems (see Cort: Fig. 14; Paragraph [0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 14 August 2026
