DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-7 and 10-25 are pending.
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 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that none of the reference teach or suggest changes in treatment based on anticipated future flow rate determined responsive to expected precipitation and/or expected sewerage flow rate. This argument is not persuasive because Jenkins teaches changes in treatment based on anticipated future flow rate determined responsive to expected sewerage flow rate (predictive analysis) (see para. 0060). The claims do not limit how the “expected sewerage flow rate” is determined, measured, or calculated, or how the anticipated flow rate is determined based on the expected sewerage flow rate. Therefore any analysis based on an expected flow rate is considered to meet this limitation. The influent flow rate and volume is the expected sewerage flow rate, as one would expect the flow rate of influent to be the influent flow rate into a treatment system. The claims do not require that the expected sewerage flow rate be determined at one time period in advance or that the anticipated flow rate be for a time in the future.
The applicant argues that Pilgram’s control system responds only after influent wastewater has already reached the plant and exceeded a threshold. This argument is not persuasive because the flow rate at the influent to the plant is not the same as the inlet of the sequencing bath reactor. This argument is also not persuasive because the rejection is not made in view of Pilgram alone. This limitation is made obvious in view of Jenkins. 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).
The applicant argues that Jenkins specifically uses real-time data to guide treatment. This argument is not persuasive because Jenkins explicitly teaches that the data is used for “predictive analysis” and to make “anticipated treatment cycles” (see para. 0060). It is further noted that the instant invention does not exclude real time data form being used to determine the anticipated flow rate. Expected precipitation and expected sewerage rate can be determined based on other real time data.
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 1-7 and 10-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,726 in view of Olson (WO 2019/055721).
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of treating wastewater with a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel, comprising: operating each of the reactors in a batch flow mode comprising introducing a wastewater to be treated into one reactor to produce a first mixed liquor, producing a first treated water and a first solids (there is a decanting step, therefore a separated treated water and solids is inherent) (see claim 4); determining an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system, the anticipated flow rate being determined responsive to at least one flow rate parameter selected from expected precipitation, and expected sewerage flow rate (see claim 6); selecting one or more reactor as being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater to be treated in a continuous flow mode; and responsive to the anticipated flow rate having been determined to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, operating the one or more selected reactor in the continuous flow mode comprising simultaneously introducing the wastewater to be treated into the one or more selected reactor to produce a second mixed liquor (see claim 10), aerating the second mixed liquor (effective amount of aeration) (see claim 10) to produce a second treated water and a second solids, settling the second solids, and decanting the second treated water (flow is continuous, therefore all steps are simultaneous) (see claim 1).
The claims do not disclose in batch flow mode controlling a dissolved oxygen concentration of the first mixed liquor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor.
Olson teaches operating a sequencing batch reactor in a batch flow mode comprising introducing a wastewater to be treated into one reactor to produce a first mixed liquor and controlling a dissolved oxygen concentration of the first mixed liquor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor (see pg. 1 lines 27-33).
The claims of the patent and Olson are analogous inventions in the art of SBRs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to control the dissolved oxygen concentration in the patent sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification, as disclosed by Olson because it allows for lower energy consumption and a more efficient process (see Olson pg. 8 lines 16-20).
Regarding Claim 2:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the batch flow mode further comprises sequentially settling the first solids and decanting the first treated water (these are the known steps of an SBR) (see Olson pg. 6 lines 26-32).
Regarding Claim 3:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the batch flow mode comprises a first treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a first predetermined concentration, a second treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a second predetermined concentration performed immediately following the first treatment regime, and a third treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a third predetermined concentration performed immediately following the second treatment regime, the first predetermined concentration and the second predetermined concentration being insufficient to meet the biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor and the third predetermined concentration being sufficient to meet the biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated (greater than the concentration of denitrification) (see Olson pg. 2 lines 16-23, pg. 9 lines 13-15). The same oxygen concentration is disclosed for the third treatment as disclosed in the instant inventions specification.
Regarding claim 4:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 3, comprising selecting the one or more reactor based on a current cycle period being one of the first treatment regime, the second treatment regime, decanting, and idle (see claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the continuous flow mode is associated with a hydraulic loading rate of about 25% to about 50% of a hydraulic loading rate associated with the batch flow mode (see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 6:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising measuring at least one reactor parameter for each of the reactors selected from available fill volume, composition of the wastewater to be treated, composition of the first mixed liquor, and hydraulic loading rate (see claim 5).
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 6, comprising selecting the one or more reactor responsive to the at least one measured reactor parameter (see claim 5).
Regarding Claim 10:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the expected precipitation or the expected sewerage flow rate is determined responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event, time of day, time of year, and geographic location (see claim 11).
Regarding Claim 11:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein responsive to the anticipated flow rate having been determined to be within a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, continuing operation of the one or more selected reactor in the batch flow mode, and re-evaluating the anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at the inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system after a period of time (third period of time) (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 12:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising measuring at least one of dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and concentration of a nitrogen compound selected from molecular nitrogen (dinitrogen, N2) gas, nitrate, nitrite, and/or ammonia of the first mixed liquor or the second mixed liquor (see Olson pg. 9, lines 22-27).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the predetermined concentration of dissolved oxygen is between about 0.05 mg/L and about 0.8 mg/L (see Olson, pg. 9 lines 7-15).
Regarding Claim 14:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 1, after operating the one or more reactor in the continuous flow mode, the method further comprising: determining a subsequent anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at the inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system; and responsive to the subsequent anticipated flow rate having been determined to be within the flow rate tolerated by the design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, operating the one or more selected reactor in the batch flow mode (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 15:
The claims of the patent, as modified disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising a transition period comprising settling an effective amount of the solids at an outset of the continuous flow mode (see claim 7).
Regarding Claim 16:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the anticipated flow rate is a flow rate expected after an amount of time of the transition period (see claim 9).
Regarding claims 17:
The claims of the patent disclose the sequencing batch reactor system comprising: a plurality of sequencing batch reactors arranged in parallel, each of the reactors having an inlet fluidly connectable to a source of wastewater to be treated and an outlet; each of the reactors comprising an aerator configured to deliver an oxygen-containing gas to a mixed liquor within a corresponding reactor; a loading subsystem configured to independently control a hydraulic loading rate of the wastewater to be treated into each of the reactors through the inlet; and a controller operably connected to the aerator of each of the reactors and the loading subsystem, the controller configured to producing a treated water and a solids; and transmit a second output signal to the loading subsystem to introduce the wastewater to be treated into one or more reactors in a continuous flow mode, responsive to the one or more reactor being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater to be treated in the continuous flow mode, and determining an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors (see claim 13), the anticipated flow rate being determined responsive to at least one flow rate parameter selected from expected precipitation and expected sewerage flow rate (see claim 6).
The claims do not disclose to transmit a first output signal to the aerator of each of the reactors to control the dissolved oxygen concentration of the mixed liquor within the reactor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the mixed liquor.
Olson teaches a sequencing batch reactor in a batch flow mode comprising introducing a wastewater to be treated into one reactor to produce a first mixed liquor and controlling a dissolved oxygen concentration of the first mixed liquor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor (see pg. 1 lines 27-33).
The claims of the patent and Olson are analogous inventions in the art of SBRs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the controller to control the dissolved oxygen concentration in the patent sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification, as disclosed by Olson because it allows for lower energy consumption and a more efficient process (see Olson pg. 8 lines 16-20).
Regarding Claims 18, 19, and 21-25:
All limitations are disclosed by the claims of the patent (see claims 13-23).
Regarding Claim 20:
The claims of the patent, as modified, disclose the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 18, wherein the sensing subsystem is configured to measure at least one of dissolved oxygen concentration, oxidation reduction potential, and concentration of a nitrogen compound selected from molecular nitrogen (dinitrogen, N2) gas, nitrate, nitrite, and/or ammonia of the mixed liquor and/or the wastewater to be treated (see Olson pg. 9, lines 22-27).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilgram et al (USPN 6,383,389) in view of Olson (WO 2019/055721) and Jenkins et al (US 2012/0085704).
Regarding Claim 1:
Pilgram teaches the method of treating wastewater with a sequencing batch reactor system having a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel (four SBRs is parallel) (see col. 11 lines 46-50, col. 8 lines 5-6), comprising: operating each of the reactors in a batch flow mode comprising introducing a wastewater to be treated into one reactor to produce a first mixed liquor (aerating) and producing a first treated water and a first solids (produced during settling and decanting) (see col. 4 lines 31-36); determining an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system (monitors influent flow rate) (see col. 6 lines 10-14); selecting one or more reactor as being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater to be treated in a continuous flow mode; and responsive to the anticipated flow rate having been determined to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, operating the one or more selected reactor in the continuous flow mode comprising simultaneously introducing the wastewater to be treated into the one or more selected reactor (see col. 6 lines 15-22, col. 3 lines 4-14) to produce a second mixed liquor, aerating the second mixed liquor to produce a second treated water and a second solids, settling the second solids, and decanting the second treated water (aerating, settling, and decanting) (see col. 10 lines 60-67).
Pilgram does not teach controlling a dissolved oxygen concentration of the first mixed liquor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor. Pilgram does not teach the anticipated flow rate being determined responsive to at least one flow rate parameter selected from expected precipitation and expected sewerage flow rate
Olson teaches operating a sequencing batch reactor in a batch flow mode comprising introducing a wastewater to be treated into one reactor to produce a first mixed liquor and controlling a dissolved oxygen concentration of the first mixed liquor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor (see pg. 1 lines 27-33).
Pilgram and Olson are analogous inventions in the art of SBR. It would have been obvious tot one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to control the dissolved oxygen concentration in the SBR of Pilgram to a level sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification, and further use the same aeration treatment regime, as disclosed by Olson because it allows for lower energy consumption and a more efficient process (see Olson pg. 8 lines 16-20).
Jenkins teaches which teaches determining “anticipated treatment cycles” based on values such as “influent flow rate” (one would expect the sewered flow rate to be the same as the influent flow rate. The claims do not limit how the expected sewerage flow rate is determined ) (see para. 0060).
Pilgram, as modified, 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 expected sewerage flow rate 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 2:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the batch flow mode further comprises sequentially settling the first solids and decanting the first treated water (see Pilgram col. 10 lines 12-20).
Regarding Claim 3:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the batch flow mode comprises a first treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a first predetermined concentration, a second treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a second predetermined concentration performed immediately following the first treatment regime, and a third treatment regime comprising controlling the dissolved oxygen concentration to a third predetermined concentration performed immediately following the second treatment regime, the first predetermined concentration and the second predetermined concentration being insufficient to meet the biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the first mixed liquor and the third predetermined concentration being sufficient to meet the biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated (greater than the concentration of denitrification) (see Olson pg. 2 lines 16-23, pg. 9 lines 13-15). The same oxygen concentration is disclosed for the third treatment as disclosed in the instant inventions specification, therefore it is presumed to inherently be sufficient to meet the biological oxygen demand.
Regarding Claim 4:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 3.
The combination does not explicitly teach selecting the one or more reactor based on a current cycle period being one of the first treatment regime, the second treatment regime, decanting, and idle. Pilgram further teaches that the transition is based on the “particular treatment step” (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 20-22). Therefore, given the finite number of predictable treatment steps, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try one of the first treatment regime, the second treatment regime, decanting, and idle, with an expectation of success (see MPEP 21463, E).
Regarding Claim 5:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the e method of claim 1, wherein the continuous flow mode is associated with a hydraulic loading rate of about 25% to about 50% of a hydraulic loading rate associated with the batch flow mode (there are four reactors, therefore the hydraulic loading rate is about 25%) (see Pilgram col. 11 lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 6:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising measuring at least one reactor parameter for each of the reactors selected from available fill volume, composition of the wastewater to be treated, composition of the first mixed liquor, and hydraulic loading rate (influent flow rate) (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 13-20).
Regarding Claim 7:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 6, comprising selecting the one or more reactor responsive to the at least one measured reactor parameter (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 13-20).
Regarding Claim 11:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein responsive to the anticipated flow rate having been determined to be within a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, continuing operation of the one or more selected reactor in the batch flow mode (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 23-26), and re-evaluating the anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at the inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system after a period of time (system is adaptive and can ignore transient spikes, therefore there will be a period of time between changing beck to continuous mode) (see Pilgram col. 6 lines 15-22).
Regarding Claim 12:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising measuring at least one of dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and concentration of a nitrogen compound selected from molecular nitrogen (dinitrogen, N2) gas, nitrate, nitrite, and/or ammonia of the first mixed liquor or the second mixed liquor (see Olson pg. 9, lines 22-27).
Regarding Claim 13:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the predetermined concentration of dissolved oxygen is between about 0.05 mg/L and about 0.8 mg/L (see Olson, pg. 9 lines 7-15).
Regarding Claim 14:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, after operating the one or more reactor in the continuous flow mode, the method further comprising: determining a subsequent anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at the inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system; and responsive to the subsequent anticipated flow rate having been determined to be within the flow rate tolerated by the design hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors, operating the one or more selected reactor in the batch flow mode (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 23-26).
Regarding Claim 15:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising a transition period comprising settling an effective amount of the solids at an outset of the continuous flow mode (batch mode includes a settling period, therefore at some point a sufficient amount of solids are settled) (See Pilgram col. 11 lines 62-65).
Regarding Claim 16:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the anticipated flow rate is a flow rate expected after an amount of time of the transition period. The anticipated flow rate is the actual flow rate (influent flow rate), therefore it is the flow rate at any given time (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 13-20).
Regarding Claim 17:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system comprising: a plurality of sequencing batch reactors arranged in parallel (four SBRs is parallel) (see col. 11 lines 46-50, col. 8 lines 5-6), each of the reactors having an inlet fluidly connectable to a source of wastewater to be treated and an outlet; each of the reactors comprising an aerator (aeration system) (see col. 13 lines 11-14) configured to deliver an oxygen-containing gas to a mixed liquor within a corresponding reactor; a loading subsystem (valves) configured to independently control a hydraulic loading rate of the wastewater to be treated into each of the reactors through the inlet (see col. 4 lines 54-56, col. 5 lines 25-30); and a controller (controller 82) operably connected to the aerator (air source) of each of the reactors and the loading subsystem (see col. 7 lines 5-7), the controller configured to: producing a treated water and a solids (settle and decant) (see col. 8 lines 27-30); and transmit a second output signal to the loading subsystem to introduce the wastewater to be treated into one or more reactors in a continuous flow mode, responsive to the one or more reactor being in a state capable of receiving the wastewater to be treated in the continuous flow mode, and determining an anticipated flow rate of the wastewater to be treated at an inlet of the sequencing batch reactor system to be greater than a flow rate tolerated by a design hydraulic loading rate (grate than the flow-transition set point) of each of the reactors (see col. 8 lines 14-22).
Pilgram does not teach that the controller is configured to transmit a first output signal to the aerator of each of the reactors to control the dissolved oxygen concentration of the mixed liquor within the reactor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the mixed liquor. Pilgram does not teach the anticipated flow rate being determined responsive to at least one flow rate parameter selected from expected precipitation and expected sewerage flow rate
Olson teaches a controller for a SBR configured to transmit a first output signal to the aerator of each of the reactors to control the dissolved oxygen concentration of the mixed liquor within the reactor to a predetermined concentration insufficient to meet a biological oxygen demand of the wastewater to be treated, but sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification reactions to occur in the mixed liquor (see pg. 1 lines 27-33).
Pilgram and Olson are analogous inventions in the art of SBR. It would have been obvious tot one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the controller of Pilgram to control the dissolved oxygen concentration in the SBR of Pilgram to a level sufficient to cause simultaneous nitrification and denitrification, and further use the same aeration treatment regime, as disclosed by Olson because it allows for lower energy consumption and a more efficient process (see Olson pg. 8 lines 16-20).
Jenkins teaches which teaches determining “anticipated treatment cycles” based on values such as “influent flow rate” (expected sewerage flow rate) (one would expect the sewered flow rate to be the same as the influent flow rate. The claims do not limit how the expected sewerage flow rate is determined ) (see para. 0060).
Pilgram, as modified, 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 expected sewerage flow rate 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 18:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 17, further comprising a sensing subsystem (input apparatus) (see Pilgram col 6 lines 45-60) operably connected to the controller.
Pilgram does not teach the sensing subsystem configured to measure at least one parameter associated with a concentration of dissolved oxygen in at least one of the mixed liquor within each of the reactors and the wastewater to be treated and transmit a first input signal to the controller corresponding to the measured dissolved oxygen parameter.
Olson further teaches a sensing subsystem configured to measure at least one parameter associated with a concentration of dissolved oxygen in at least one of the mixed liquor within each of the reactors and the wastewater to be treated and transmit a first input signal to the controller corresponding to the measured dissolved oxygen parameter (see pg. 3 lines 14-16).
It would have been obvious to add the dissolved oxygen sensor to the sensing subsystem of Pilgram, as disclosed by Olson, because dissolved oxygen control is required to perform simultaneous nitrification and denitrification (see Olson pg. 3 lines 13-21).
Regarding Claim 19:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first output signal responsive to the first input signal (maintain the dissolved oxygen concentration as desired) (see Olson pg. 3 lines 13-21).
Regarding Claim 20:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 18, wherein the sensing subsystem is configured to measure at least one of dissolved oxygen concentration, oxidation reduction potential, and concentration of a nitrogen compound selected from molecular nitrogen (dinitrogen, N2) gas, nitrate, nitrite, and/or ammonia of the mixed liquor and/or the wastewater to be treated (see Olson pg. 3 lines 14-16).
Regarding Claim 21:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 17, further comprising a measuring subsystem (input apparatus) (see Pilgram col 6 lines 45-60) operably connected to the controller and configured to measure at least one parameter associated with the state of each of the reactors (fluid level sensor) and transmit a second input signal to the controller corresponding to the at least one measured reactor parameter (see col. 6 lines 45-60).
Regrading Claim 22:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the second output signal responsive to the second input signal (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 8-13).
Regarding Claim 23:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 22, wherein the measuring subsystem is configured to measure at least one of available fill volume, composition of the wastewater to be treated, composition of the mixed liquor (contaminant concentration) (see col. Pilgram col. 8 lines , and hydraulic loading rate of each of the reactors (see col. 8 lines 9-13).
Regarding Claim 24:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to receive a third input signal corresponding to the at least one flow rate parameter selected from expected precipitation, and transmit the second output signal responsive to the third input signal (see Pilgram col. 8 lines 18-22).
Regarding Claim 25:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the sequencing batch reactor system of claim 24, wherein the controller is programmable (controller is a PLC, therefore it is programmable) (see Pilgram col. 7 lines 18-20) to recognize trends of the anticipated flow rate on a schedule and transmit the second output signal responsive to the recognized trends (claims do not require that the controller is programed to recognize trends).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilgram et al (USPN 6,383,389) in view of Olson (WO 2019/055721) and Jenkins et al (US 2012/0085704) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Takemura et al (US 2010/0243544) in view of Beyenbach et al (DE 102004024430).
Regarding Claim 10:
Pilgram, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
Pilgram does not teach the expected precipitation or the expected sewerage flow rate is determined responsive to at least one of a predicted weather event, time of day, time of year, and geographic location.
Takemura teaches the use of weather information (predicted weather events) to determine the use of sewage treatment devices (see para. 0054, 0063).
Beyenbach teaches using historical data to better respond to changes in needed wastewater treatment (see pg. 4 para. 0610)
Pilgram, Takemura, and Beyenbach are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine expected precipitation (changes in water flow rate) based on a predicted weather event, as disclosed by Takemura and use the predicted data to generate an anticipated flow rate (using current information to recognize similarities), as disclosed by Beyenbach because it allows the system to respond to peak loads {see Beyenbach para. 0016}.
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 4/8/2026
Prosecution Insights