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 26 November 2025 has been entered; claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5 of the Remarks, filed 26 November 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 4.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 5-6 of the Remarks, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims over Hoeferlin in view of Cort have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cort is structurally and functionally distinct from the presently claimed subject matter as Cort’s magnetic disks operate directly with a mixed flow stream to remove solids from primary clarification, and does therefore does not teach an in-line magnetic recovery device downstream of primary clarification.
In response, the Examiner submits that the system of Hoeferlin was modified to add the in-line magnetic recovery device downstream of the magnetic drum taught by Hoeferlin, which necessarily places the in-line magnetic recovery device downstream of the clarification component of the system. It is the combination of references which teaches that secondary, downstream recovery of magnetic ballast. Applicant argues that since the device of Cort is operating as a primary clarification mechanism, it is not targeting residual magnetite that escapes primary recovery; however, the Examiner can find no evidence in Cort that states that the magnetic ballast clarification device of Cort is incompatible with downstream processes. Indeed, Cort envisions many different applications and systems in which the disclosed magnetic ballast recovery device can be used, including, for example, after biological treatment (see Fig. 16b; Paragraph [0129]).
Cort also mentions that being able to clarify water inline or with a small mix tank with the MBC allows it to be mounted inside or on top of an aeration basin or any biological or chemical treatment system (considered to include clarification), which has significant installation and operating benefits (Paragraph [0021]). Cort makes it clear that the disclosed in-line magnetic recovery device improves the efficiency of magnetic ballast clarification (Paragraph [0002]), which is not limited to primary versus downstream clarification. Applicant argues that Cort’s efficiency improvements relate to system compactness and clarification throughput, which are unrelated to ballast recovery; however, the Examiner submits that these advantages would facilitate installation of the in-line magnetic recovery device of Cort in existing clarification systems, such as Hoeferlin. For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained below.
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 1-7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeferlin et al. (WO # 2019/036598) in view of Cort et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0221845), hereinafter “Hoeferlin” and “Cort”.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Hoeferlin discloses a system 1000 for treating water comprising solids (Abstract; Fig. 1; Pages 16-18) comprising:
a ballasted reactor 1100 (“ballast reactor tank”) having an inlets 1120 to receive water for treatment (see Fig. 1; Page 16, lines 3-16);
a ballast feed subsystem 1500 having an outlet 1520 fluidly connectable to second inlet 1140 of ballasted reactor 1100 (“ballast reactor tank”), which is a source of magnetic ballast material (see Page 12, lines 5-15);
a solids-liquid separation subsystem 1200 embodied as a clarifier fluidly connected downstream of the ballast reactor tank 1100, wherein the clarifier 1200 has an inlet 1120 fluidly connected to the outlet 1160 of ballasted reactor 1100 (Fig. 1; Page 11, lines 8-9; Page 16, lines 3-16), the clarifier 1200 having a treated effluent outlet 1240 and a ballasted solids outlet 1260 (Page 16, lines 5-7);
and a ballast recovery subsystem 1600 (“magnetic separation system”) with inlet 1620 configured to recover magnetic ballast material downstream of the clarifier 1200 and return the recovered magnetic ballast material to ballast reactor 1100 via outlet 1640 (Page 16, lines 12-16),
the ballast recovery subsystem 1600 (“magnetic separation system”) comprising a magnetic drum separator (Page 15, lines 1-19, Example 1 on Page 20) fluidly connected via inlet 1620 to ballasted solids outlet 1260 of clarifier 1200, the magnetic drum separator comprising a separated solids (sludge) waste solids outlet (see Example 1 page 20), wherein the magnetic drum separator is configured to separate the aggregates from the magnetic ballast in an efficient manner (Page 13, lines 10-13; Page 15, lines 1-19; Page 20, Example 1);
Hoeferlin does not disclose an in-line magnetic recovery device fluidly connected to at least one of the waste solids outlet of the magnetic drum and the treated effluent outlet of the clarifier.
Cort teaches in-line magnetic ballast clarification (Abstract; Fig. 2) comprising an array of rotating discs 5 fluidly connected to the waste solids outlet 11 of magnetic drum 7 (Paragraph [0114]; Figs. 1, 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the rotating disks 5 of Cort to the method of Hoeferlin to obtain an in-line magnetic ballast clarification as taught by Cort because Hoeferlin teaches that the wastewater treatment system can include one or more additional devices (Page 17, lines 14-15) and already comprises a magnetic drum, and because Cort teaches that the disclosed in-line magnetic ballast clarification allows for removal of solids and recovery of magnetic ballast from high flow rates of water (Abstract), improving the efficiency of magnetic ballast clarification (Paragraph [0002]); Cort also mentions that being able to clarify water inline or with a small mix tank with the MBC allows it to be mounted inside or on top of an aeration basin or any biological or chemical treatment system, which has significant installation and operating benefits (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the magnetic ballast material comprises magnetite (see Hoeferlin: Page 12, lines 5-7), wherein the magnetite has a size of less than about 100 microns (Page 12, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 4, Hoeferlin in view of Cort discloses wherein the magnetite has a size of less than about 100 microns (Page 12, lines 5-15), with some example embodiments ranging from 40-60 microns, 20-40 microns, and 1-20 microns (Page 12, lines 5-15).
Hoeferlin in view of Cort and the claims differ in that Hoeferlin does not teach the exact same proportions for the particle size as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in particle size taught by Hoeferlin overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and because of the disclosed example embodiments for particles sizes ranging from 40-60 microns, 20-40 microns, and 1-20 microns (Page 12, lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Hoeferlin, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
With respect to claim 6, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the array of rotating magnetic disks 5 comprises scrapers 22 located between the magnetic disks 5 (Paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 7, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the array of rotating magnetic disks 5 is integrated with a magnetic drum 7 or magnetic disks 7 driven by a gear motor (Paragraph [0114]), wherein the rotating magnetic disks can act as a magnetite filter (“magnetic filter”) (Paragraphs [0054-0056, 0092, 0093]).
With respect to claim 13, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the magnetic separation system 1600, as modified with the in-line magnetic ballast device of Cort including rotating magnetic disks 5 and magnetic drum or disks 7 further comprises a magnetic shearing device 6 upstream from magnetic drum 7 (see Cort: Paragraph [0114]; Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 14, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the ballast reactor tank 1100 is fluidly connected to pre-treatment subsystem 1300 which has a first inlet 1322 connectable to a source of at least one coagulant and a flocculant (Page 16: lines 3-16).
Regarding claim 16, Hoeferlin discloses a method for treating water comprising solids (Abstract; Fig. 1; Pages 16-18) comprising:
introducing a source of water 1020 to a ballasted reactor 1100 (“ballast reactor tank”) having an inlets 1120 to receive water for treatment (see Fig. 1; Page 16, lines 3-16);
adding a magnetic ballast material via a ballast feed subsystem 1500 having an outlet 1520 fluidly connectable to second inlet 1140 of ballasted reactor 1100 (“ballast reactor tank”) to produce a ballasted effluent, (see Page 12, lines 5-15);
separating the ballasted effluent into treated effluent and ballasted solids in solids-liquid separation subsystem 1200 (Fig. 1; Page 11, lines 8-9; Page 16, lines 3-16), the clarifier 1200 having a treated effluent outlet 1240 and a ballasted solids outlet 1260 (Page 16, lines 5-7);
introducing the ballasted solids into a magnetic ballast material recovery subsystem 1600 comprising a magnetic drum to provide waste solids (separated solids sludge as described in Example 1 Pages 20; see also Page 16, lines 3-16; Fig. 1) and return the recovered magnetic ballast material to ballast reactor 1100 via outlet 1640 (Page 16, lines 12-16).
Hoeferlin teaches that the waste solids from the magnetic drum are thickened, subjected to a filter press operation, and sent to the (ballasted) reactor tank in Fig. 4) in the ballasted treatment unit (Fig. 4), which means that the waste solids are added to ballasted reactor 1100, separated via clarifier 1200, and sent to the magnetic ballast material recovery subsystem 1600 comprising the magnetic drum, from which the recovered magnetic ballast material is returned to ballast reactor 1100 via outlet 1640 (Page 16, lines 12-16).
Hoeferlin does not disclose an in-line magnetic recovery device as claimed.
Cort teaches in-line magnetic ballast clarification (Abstract; Fig. 2) comprising an array of rotating discs 5 fluidly connected to the waste solids outlet 11 of magnetic drum 7 (Paragraph [0114]; Figs. 1, 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the rotating disks 5 to the method of Hoeferlin to obtain an in-line magnetic ballast clarification as taught by Cort because Hoeferlin teaches that the wastewater treatment system can include one or more additional devices (Page 17, lines 14-15) and already comprises a magnetic drum, and because Cort teaches that the disclosed in-line magnetic ballast clarification allows for removal of solids and recovery of magnetic ballast from high flow rates of water (Abstract), improving the efficiency of magnetic ballast clarification (Paragraph [0002]); Cort also mentions that being able to clarify water inline or with a small mix tank with the MBC allows it to be mounted inside or on top of an aeration basin or any biological or chemical treatment system, which has significant installation and operating benefits (Paragraph [0021]).
With respect to claim 18, Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the ballast reactor tank 1100 is fluidly connected to pre-treatment subsystem 1300 which has a first inlet 1322 connectable to a source of at least one coagulant and a flocculant (Page 16: lines 3-16), wherein the flocculant/coagulant is added into ballasted reactor 1100 via inlet 1120 (Page 16, lines 3-16; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 19, Hoeferlin in view of Cort is silent with respect to a cleaning solution regarding ballast recovery.
With respect to claim 20, the Examiner submits that Hoeferlin teaches a water treatment system 1000 comprising magnetic ballast reactor tank 1100, clarifier 1200, and a magnetic separation system 1600 comprising a magnetic drum (see Page 16, lines 5-15; Page 20 Example 1), wherein the magnetic separation system 1600 is augmented with the array of rotating magnetic disks in the above modification with Cort (please see the rejection of claim 1 for details), which yields an in-line magnetic recovery device. Hoeferlin also specifically teaches a method of retrofitting a wastewater treatment system to treat high-solids water (Page 18, lines 1-13).
Claims 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeferlin et al. (WO # 2019/036598) in view of Cort et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0221845) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cort 2 (WO # 2008039936), hereinafter “Hoeferlin”, “Cort”, and “Cort 2”.
With respect to claim 8, Hoeferlin in view of Cort renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach a conveyor belt with a mounted array of magnets.
Cort 2 teaches a ballasted flocculation process (paragraph spanning Pages 2-3) comprising a magnetic belt collector comprising a magnetized conveyor belt 250 with mounted array of magnets 240 (Page 15, second full Paragraph through Page 17, line 2; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the magnetized conveyor belt with array of mounted magnets of Cort 2 to the in-line magnetic recovery device of Hoeferlin in view of Cort because Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the wastewater treatment system can include one or more additional devices (see Hoeferlin: Page 17, lines 14-15), and Cort 2 teaches that the magnetized conveyor belt with array of mounted magnets works with a shear device and a final magnetic collector 4 positioned at outlet 6 to capture the magnetic particles from clarified water, while reducing load on the final magnetic collector (Page 15, second full paragraph, and see paragraph spanning Pages 16-17), and also teaches that baffle C disposed adjacent to magnetized conveyor belt 250 functions to mechanically isolate the magnetic belt from turbulence of mixing, prevents premature magnetic floc from attaching to the belt (Pag 16, last full paragraph), and allows for increased throughput while and more concentrated waste (see Page 41, second full paragraph).
With respect to claims 12 and 17, Hoeferlin in view of Cort renders obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 16, but does not specifically teach introducing treated effluent to an in-line magnetic recovery device.
Cort 2 teaches a final magnetic collector positioned at outlet 6 to capture the magnetic particles from clarified water (paragraph spanning Pages 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional in-line magnetic recovery device at the outlet for treated effluent as taught by Cort 2 to the magnetic ballast recovery subsystem of Hoeferlin in view of Cort because Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the wastewater treatment system can include one or more additional devices (see Hoeferlin: Page 17, lines 14-15), and Cort 2 teaches that the magnetized conveyor belt with array of mounted magnets acts a first magnetic collector and works with a final magnetic collector 4 positioned at outlet 6 to capture the magnetic particles from clarified water (Page 15, last 7 lines; Page 16, last 5 lines), and allows for increased throughput while and more concentrated waste (see Page 41, second full paragraph).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeferlin et al. (WO # 2019/036598) in view of Cort et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0221845) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cort 3 (U.S. Patent Publication # 2007/0039894), hereinafter “Hoeferlin”, “Cort”, and “Cort 3”.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Hoeferlin in view of Cort renders obvious 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 3 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 add an additional in-line magnetic recovery device at the outlet for treated effluent comprising the magnetic tubes of Cort 3, or to add the magnetic tubes of Cort 3 to the in-line magnetic ballast material recovery device of Hoeferlin in view of Cort because Hoeferlin in view of Cort teaches that the wastewater treatment system can include one or more additional devices (see Hoeferlin: Page 17, lines 14-15), and Cort 3 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).
Hoeferlin in view of Cort and Cort 3 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 Hoeferlin et al. (WO # 2019/036598) in view of Cort et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0221845) and Cort 3 (U.S. Patent Publication # 2007/0039894) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Sundt (U.S. Patent # 3941700), hereinafter “Hoeferlin”, “Cort”, “Cort 3”, and “Sundt”.
With respect to claim 10, Hoeferlin in view of Cort and Cort 3 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 3 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 Hoeferlin in view of Cort, which may contain residual magnetic particles.
Regarding claim 11, Hoeferlin in view of Cort, Cort 3, 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 3 to direct the magnetic particles accordingly in view of the teachings of Cort 3 and Sundt, as Cort 3, 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 3, and the cavity in the piping comprising vertically oriented magnet 10 of Sundt. Especially in view of Cort 3, 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
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 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 04 March 2026