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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has added new claims 10-13. Claims 1-13 are pending in the application. The 112(b) rejections previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejections are directed to the combination of Calltharp (US 6,884,354 B1) with Anderson (US 4,883,602 A), and specifically raise two points of contention regarding the teachings of Anderson: whether Anderson provides a plurality of channels connecting the recovery conduit to the chamber, and whether Anderson provides a means for recovering a clarified fraction of the contents of the chamber (e.g. via reference element (39)).
Regarding the presence of channels connecting the conduit to the chamber, applicant’s arguments that the channels e.g. (45) of Anderson are not sufficient to meet the claim requirements e.g. because they are arranged to recover settled material are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of record, the channels are represented not only by spaces (45) but also by spaces through which liquid flow (23) occurs; all of these spaces are spaces through which liquid is capable of flowing during the relevant SBR cycles. Anderson [col. 5 lines 56-66] discusses the changing water level during various SBR cycles, with a high-water mark (44a) [Fig. 2] during a decant cycle, allowing decanting of the liquid into the channel via weir (12) with e.g. v-notches [Fig. 1]. The various channels, even those which also facilitate settling of solids such as space (45), nevertheless provide free flow paths for liquid to move in and out of the hood structure during the various SBR cycles i.e. to facilitate the changing water level between the high (44a) and low (44b) marks [Fig. 2].
Regarding the use of the hood structure and its positioning being insufficient for collecting a clarified fraction, this argument is also not persuasive. The design of Anderson is specifically described as a liquid decanter which is intended to decant settled liquid above the decanter [Abs]; through control of e.g. air and the like, the liquid level is manipulated so that, during a decant cycle, the liquid level is high (44a) and allows for decanting of this liquid through the notches of weir (12) and into the recovery duct via trough (19) and effluent outlet pipe (20) [Col. 4 lines 33-68, Figs. 1-2]. Absent clarification of what the claim requires specifically e.g. in terms of location, the design of Anderson would clearly be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a design consistent with a means of recovering a clarified fraction of the contents of the chamber, as it is specifically designed to recover settled liquids from the high-liquid mark (44a) during decanting cycles.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calltharp (US 6,884,354 B1) in view of Anderson (US 4,883,602 A).
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Calltharp teaches method of operating a sequencing batch reactor, as well as a system for carrying out such method, which includes steps and components for operating in the following manner (i.e. the typical operation of a sequencing batch reactor):
Filling and simultaneously recovering clarified fraction, with such filling occurring at low velocity near the bottom of the reactor via a suitable network and displacing the treated effluent in equal amounts (step of supplying and simultaneous step of recovering),
Aerating the contents of the reactor for a predetermined time period to allow biodegradation to take place (biological treatment reaction sequence), and
Allowing the reactor to settle under quiescent conditions such that sludge will settle to the bottom [Col. 4 lines 8-28].
The system for carrying out this method includes a chamber e.g. reactor basin (32) for containing wastewater and sludge in different levels (i.e. levels which are produced during quiescent settling, including a settled sludge bed at the bottom and recoverable clarified upper layers), a recovery duct i.e. decanter (18) extending below the surface of the mixture in the chamber and communicating the interior and exterior of the device to recover clarified layers) and which connect to appropriate orifices i.e. discharge conduits (40) [Fig. 2, Col. 5 lines 36-45 and 50-65], an air exhaust valve/air duct/air injector (34) for venting air and also for controlling flow of pressurized air into the system to control operations [Col. 7 lines 5-12]. Further regarding the operations of the device and specifically with regards to air control, Calltharp teaches that the control valve (34) opens to allow venting during the fill/recovery step, and then is also used to fill the recovery conduit with air and hold it in such state during the other steps to prevent mixed liquor from entering the conduit [Col. 7 lines 5-22]. The system is provided with a computer controller (20) for carrying out the desired method steps [Col. 5 line 66-Col. 6 line 5].
The system and method of Calltharp therefore essentially differ from the instant claimed invention in that they are silent to the provision of a plurality of channels hydraulically connecting the recovery conduit to the chamber, or to an air/water blocking device, or to steps of using such components during the standard sequence.
However, Anderson teaches a decanter design for a sequencing batch reactor [Abs] which is designed to discharge liquid at a constant flow rate regardless of head pressure and is designed to exclude solids and liquids from entering during the fill and mixing cycles, while also providing means for skimming undesirable materials from the surface of the reactor. The decanter design [Fig. 2, Col. 5 lines 14-55] includes a plurality of channels hydraulically connecting the conduit to the chamber i.e. the spaces (45) through which fluid may flow (and solids may settle), as well as channels defined by deflectors e.g. flow paths represented by (23) as described, which allow the decanter to fill but control the level and behavior during appropriate cycles. The decanter may include a suitable air/water blocking device in the form of a trap (39) which becomes filled with liquid at the end of a recovery cycle, and where a valve (43) is provided to control recovery outflow and the like [Fig. 4, Col. 7 line 63-Col. 8 line 20]. The trap includes a vent (28) suitable valves [Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 67-Col. 6 line 27] for controlling flow of air into and out of the system to keep air in the hood and control the flow of the recovery conduit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and process taught by Calltharp to include a decanter design as in Anderson, with suitable channels and a suitable air/liquid trap and associated control components and operational steps, to gain the benefit of improving the outflow behavior of the recovery system while preventing liquid and solid ingress at undesired times, and while also gaining the benefit of providing means to remove undesired floating material from above the decanter structure without contaminating the recovered effluent.
The claimed process and system would have been obvious over such combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 6, as above Anderson teaches providing a U-shaped structure (which may be controlled to act as a siphon depending on the action of the appropriate air vent valves and the like) which provides a hydraulic discontinuity to block air while being filled.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, as above the systems both open suitable valves to evacuate air to facilitate draining and refilling of the recovery duct during the simultaneous filling/recovery step, and in Anderson’s taught system this includes allowing the trap to function in an “open” state to allow flow of effluent therethrough.
With respect to claim 8, the recovery orifices e.g. (45) are positioned below the level of the decanter (10) in the design taught by Anderson, to maintain a level difference (38) [Fig. 4, Col. 7 line 63-Col. 8 line 20] and is provided with a vent (40).
With respect to claim 9, the blocking device of Anderson is provided with a control valve at the recovery orifices (43) [Fig. 4].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calltharp in view of Anderson, further in view of Wett (US PGPub 2018/0043286 A1).
Calltharp and Anderson teach as above but are silent to an arrangement in which the outlet orifice is higher than the decanter structure. At least Anderson suggests it may be lower but that the difference in elevation is small to control head pressure.
However, Wett teaches various embodiments of systems for draining water from a clarification tank e.g. while maintaining constant liquid level [Abs] in which liquid is drained from a tank (22) into an overflow section (25) terminated by a weir (10) [0034], and teaches embodiments in which the conduit terminates in the overflow space at a level which is higher than the inlet side for decanting [Figs. 7-9]. Wett teaches that the level control and relative levels depend on operational parameters and form an equilibrium [0040-0045, 0048]. Providing an alternative height to manage level behavior in an overflow space e.g. by controlling the pressure equilibrium would have been an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art in the modified system of Calltharp, in view of the guidance of Wett, in particular because such arrangement would further reduce the head pressure maximum according to the designs of Anderson. See also MPEP 2143 I.B; simple substitution of one known effluent control arrangement for another, known to be suitable for decanting of supernatants in clarifiers and the like, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calltharp in view of Anderson, further in view of Mandt (US 4,596,658 A).
Calltharp teaches as above including that the decanter includes influent conduits (12) which feed wastewater into the basin via distribution members (14), to distribute it “across the bottom of each reactor basin.” Calltharp does not depict or otherwise require that this is a network covering the bottom of the chamber although the term “covering” may be sufficiently broad to be read on the taught feeding behavior.
However, Mandt teaches a similar SBR structure and teaches that, to facilitate mixing of the liquids in the tank, there is provided a network in the form of manifold (124) with nozzles to direct liquid from the tank in desired directions at the bottom of the tank [Col. 4 lines 36-55, Fig. 2]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, this would properly be a network covering the bottom of the tank by way of its flow configuration. While the structure of Mandt is not directly connected to the influent feed lines, it nevertheless pulls wastewater from the tank and therefore acts on liquid being fed into the reactor to enhance distribution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process of Calltharp to feature a manifold network with nozzles as in Mandt to enhance mixing of the liquid that has been fed into the reactor basins, as taught by Mandt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As discussed in the interview dated 12/22/2025, the specific limitations in claims 12 and 13 regarding holding of air in the recovery duct until the end of the decanting step is not taught or suggested by the prior art alone or in combination and claims 12 and 13 are therefore free from the prior art.
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 BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777