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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. The amendments have been considered and necessitated further consideration of the prior art. New and revised rejections responsive to the amended claims are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ginestet (WO2019053114) does not teach continuous sludge blanket measurement, extraction triggered by a predetermined relationship between the measured sludge blanket and the extraction level, or extraction at any level in the chamber, and further argues that Ginestet limits selective extraction to the SETTLE phase. However, as set forth in the rejection below, Ginestet ‘114 (WO2019053114) expressly teaches selective extraction during the latter portion of the SETTLE and/or during the following FILL and DRAW phase, and further teaches extraction during other process phases. Ginestet ‘805 (WO2016020805) additionally teaches real-time measurement of sludge-bed conditions, automatic process control responsive to measured sludge-bed conditions, and sludge discharge responsive to predetermined measured thresholds. Accordingly, the newly cited combination addresses the limitations added to claim 1.
Applicant further argues that Ho, Bott, and LeMaire do not remedy the asserted deficiencies of Ginestet and that WRF does not supply the amended limitations of independent claim 1. These arguments do not address the newly applied Ginestet ‘805 reference and the revised combination set forth below. The rejection of claim 10 likewise relies on WRF for the additional Nox monitoring and control limitation of claim 10, rather than for the amended sludge-blanket limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive of patentability for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites "The treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sludge blanket is measured continuously." However, claim 1 already recites "wherein the sludge blanket is measured continuously." Therefore claim 9 does not specify a further limitation of claim 1 as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet '114 (WO 2019053114 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Ginestet '805 (WO 2016020805 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Bott (US 20160137537 A1) and LeMaire (US 20130319938 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ginestet ‘114 discloses method for treating a wastewater effluent comprising carbon pollution, nitrogen pollution and phosphorus pollution, in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0036-0039]), comprising: a step of supplying the SBR, during which an amount of effluent to be treated is introduced near the bottom of the chamber (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0168-0169] wastewater is introduced from the bottom of the enclosure under anaerobic or anoxic conditions); the SBR comprising: a chamber capable of containing a wastewater-sludge mixture comprising various levels, with each level being defined by a sludge concentration and/or density (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0055-0058], [0127-0128]); a sludge bed, comprising PAOs, located at the bottom of the chamber, above which a sludge blanket level is defined (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0030-0034], [0040], [0068] PAOs are present in the sludge and are favored in dense sludge particles/granules); a measurement probe for determining a minimum level and a maximum level for extracting sludge in the chamber (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶{0057-0060], [0128]); and an extractor capable of extracting sludge at variable levels between the minimum extraction level and the maximum extraction level (Ginestet ‘144 ¶¶[0061-0065], [0093]); and a step of treating the wastewater effluent comprising a reaction sequence comprising: at least a first anaerobic step, during which the PAOs capture the carbon pollution and release phosphorus compounds (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0030-0033]); a third aeration step, allowing the dephosphatation of the effluent by the PAOs to be carried out (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶0033-0037]); a decanting step, during which sludge is deposited at the bottom of the chamber and the content of the chamber clarifies in the vicinity of its surface (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0155-0160]); a recovery step, during which a clarified fraction is drawn off from the content of the chamber, with said recovery and supply steps taking place simultaneously, so as to keep the level of the content of the chamber substantially constant during the recovery and supply steps (Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0168-0169] FILL and DRAW occur simultaneously in the fixed-level SBR); and a step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge with a decanting speed of less than 2 m/h at a predetermined sludge extraction level between the minimum extraction level and the maximum extraction level(Ginestet ‘114 ¶¶[0041-0046], [0063-0067], [0171] “1 m/h for the flocculent sludge” and teaches selectively removing low-settling particles while retaining better-settling sludge).
Ginestet ‘114 does not explicitly disclose that the effluent is introduced in the sludge bed, preferably via a distribution network covering the bottom of the chamber; that the aeration is controlled so as to simultaneously carry out either nitrification, or nitritation; that the extracted light sludge has a sludge index that is greater than 100 mL/g; or that the method comprises that the sludge blanket is measured continuously: and wherein the step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge is carried out at any level in the chamber when the measurement of the sludge blanket is substantially equal to a predetermined distance from the sludge extraction level.
Ginestet ‘805 discloses introducing the effluent to be treated into the sludge bed, preferably intimately and uniformly, and further teaches introduction through a perforated feed tube having holes directed toward the bottom of the reactor (Ginestet ‘805 pp. 3, 7 and claims 2-4). Ginestet ‘805 further discloses sensors or probes within the reactor for measuring suspended solids/sludge-bed information, the sensors being connected to a computer or controller which “processes the measurements in real time” and automatically controls operation of the treatment process; Figure 2 illustrates sludge-bed height as a function of time (seen in the original document Fig. 2 “Temps” is French for time). Ginestet ‘805 further teaches detecting the sludge-bed level relative to a reference level selected at a predetermined distance below another reactor level, taking automatic process action when the sludge bed reaches the predetermined condition, detecting sludge-bed thickness, and discharging sludge when the detected thickness exceeds a predetermined threshold (Ginestet ‘805 claim 9). Ginestet ‘805 additionally teaches that its sludge extraction system is capable of operating during the aeration step, anoxic step, decanting step, and “even the feeding and emptying steps” (Ginestet ‘805 p. 8). Thus, Ginestet ‘805 teaches real-time sludge-bed monitoring and automatic sludge extraction responsive to a measured sludge-bed condition, without restricting extraction to the settling phase.
Bott discloses selectively removing poorly settling sludge fractions from biological wastewater-treatment systems while retaining sludge having superior settling characteristics (Bott ¶¶[0052-0057]). Bott further teaches that sludge volume index (SVI) is a standard measure of sludge settleability and that an SVI greater than 150 mL/g is indicative of poor settleability, thereby expressly teaching poorly settling sludge having an SVI greater than the claimed 100 mL/g (Bott ¶[0064]).
LeMaire discloses treatment of nitrogen-containing wastewater in an SBR comprising an aerated nitration step and teaches controlling the aeration based upon in-line measurements of nitrite/Nox-related parameters (LeMaire ¶¶[0054-0057]). In particular, LeMaire teaches comparing measured nitrogen parameters with predetermined thresholds and stopping or controlling the aerated nitritation step in response thereto (LeMaire ¶¶[0072-0077], [0108-0118]), thereby teaching controlling aeration so as to carry out nitration as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SBR selective-sludge-extraction process of Ginestet ‘114 by introducing the influent into the sludge bed using the bottom-distribution arrangement and employing the real-time sludge-bed monitoring and threshold-responsive control taught by Ginestet ‘805, by selectively removing high-SVI poorly settling sludge as taught by Bott, and by controlling aeration according to measured nitrogen parameters as taught by LeMaire. Ginestet ‘114 expressly seeks to improve the precision with which poorly settling sludge is selectively removed by determining extraction levels according to the measured nitrogen parameters as taught by LeMaire. Ginestet ‘114 expressly seeks to improve the precision with which poorly settling sludge is selectively removed by determining extraction levels according to the measured vertical sludge distribution, while Ginestet ‘805 teaches real-time measurement of sludge-bed condition and automatic process control, including sludge discharge, in response to predetermined sludge-bed conditions. It therefore would have been an obvious and predictable use of Ginestet ‘805’s real-time sludge-bed control in Ginestet ‘114’s variable-level extraction system to continuously monitor the sludge blanket and initiate extraction at the selected extraction level when the monitored sludge blanket reaches a predetermined positional relationship to that extraction level, thereby more precisely removing the poorly settling sludge targeted by Ginestet ‘114 while avoiding unnecessary removal of better-settling sludge.
Regarding claim 3, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge is carried out during the supply step and/or during the decanting step (Ginestet ‘114 ¶[0171] teaches selective extraction during the last part of the SETTLE period and/or during the next FILL and DRAW phase).
Regarding claim 4, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, comprising, during the reaction sequence, a step of injecting air into the chamber (Ginestet ‘114 ¶[0156-0157] “REACT phase” includes aeration phases).
Regarding claim 5, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third aeration step is followed by a step of deammonification under anoxic conditions, when the third step is a partial nitritation step (Ginestet ‘805 pp. 5-6 teaches an aeration step wherein ammonium is partially oxidized to nitrites, followed by an anoxic step wherein the produced nitrites and remaining ammonium react to produce nitrogen gas).
Regarding claim 6, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the decanting step (Ginestet ‘114 SETTLE phase par. [0158]) is preceded by a step of injecting air into the chamber (Ginestet ‘114 aerated REACT phase par. [0156-0157] precedes SETTLE phase).
Regarding claim 7, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, comprising a step of densifying sludge using a densification device inside the chamber (Ginestet ‘114 ¶ [0068] “keep only dense sludge particles (or granules) in the reactor”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same continuous sludge-blanket measurement limitation already recited in claim 1 and is therefore unpatentable for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet '114 (WO 2019053114 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Ginestet '805 (WO 2016020805 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Bott (US 20160137537 A1) and LeMaire (US 20130319938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho (US5525231).
Regarding claim 8, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire does not expressly teach the treatment method further comprising a step of controlling the duration of the third aeration step as a function of the level of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of the wastewater effluent.
Ho discloses operating an SBR for biological removal of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, including aerated and non-aerated reaction periods (Ho col. 4, lines 1-10, 11-25). Ho further teaches that the variable combination of the different reaction periods allows the process to be adapted to wastewater having various compositions and concentrations, and that, based on online measurements of important components in the reactor, different treatment combination may be selected to achieve consistently good effluent quality (Ho col. 4, lines 55-61). Ho further provides operating strategies in which the aerated REACT periods are assigned predetermined durations and demonstrates adjustment of the duration and arrangement of aerated REACT periods during operation (Ho col. 5 Tables I; col. 7 Table III). Thus, Ho teaches controlling the duration of aerated treatment periods according to the measured composition and concentration of pollutants in the wastewater. Ho expressly identifies COD, nitrogen species, and phosphorous species as monitored wastewater constituents relevant to biological nutrient removal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SBR treatment method of Ginestet ‘114 as modified by Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire by controlling the duration of the aeration step according to the measured levels of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous pollution as taught by Ho. Ho teaches varying the combination and duration of aerated and non-aerated reaction periods to adapt the treatment process to the composition and concentration of the wastewater based on online measurements of reactor constituents. One of ordinary skill therefore would have had reason to employ such control in the combined process in order to provide sufficient aeration for the measured pollutant loading while avoiding unnecessary aeration and thereby obtain consistently treated effluent.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet '114 (WO 2019053114 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Ginestet '805 (WO 2016020805 A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Bott (US 20160137537 A1) and LeMaire (US 20130319938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WRF (The Water Research Foundation). 2019. “Operations and Control”.
Regarding claim 10, Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire discloses or renders obvious the treatment method as claimed in claim 1.
However, the combination of Ginestet ‘114 in view of Ginestet ‘805, Bott and LeMaire does not expressly disclose that the reaction sequence further comprises a second step of denitrification under anoxic conditions, being implemented only in the case of an NOx concentration that is greater than a predetermined threshold.
WRF describes process monitoring and control strategies used in biological nutrient removal systems and teaches that “Online NOx Monitoring Sensors (either as NOx or as nitrate and nitrite separately)” are used in wastewater treatment systems and “can be used in a feed-back control” or “feed-forward control” strategy (WRF p. 6). WRF further teaches that nutrient-removal process control commonly includes “Monitoring of DO, nitrate (in and out of nitrification zones)” and “Using online probes to set up a control algorithm” (WRF p. 4-5). WRF also explains that control strategies may use “automatic feed-forward control using flow and influent nitrate concentration” and rely on “online monitoring systems” (WRF p. 13). Lemaire, already incorporated into the combination above, further teaches comparing a measured nitrogen-related concentration with a predetermined threshold, terminating aeration when the threshold condition is reached, and initiating an anoxic phase, during which the produced nitrites are degraded to molecular nitrogen gas (LeMaire ¶¶[0072-0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate the NOx monitoring and feedback control strategies described by WRF into the sequencing batch reactor method of Ginestet ‘114 as modified by Ginestet ‘805, LeMaire and Bott and to use the measured Nox concentration as a control parameter for initiating the anoxic denitrification phase. LeMaire already teaches the predictable control principle of comparing a measured nitrogen parameter with a predetermined threshold and initiating an anoxic nitrogen-removal phase when the threshold condition is reached, while WRF teaches using measured Nox concentration in an online control algorithm. Accordingly, implementing the anoxic denitrification step only when the measured Nox concentration exceeds a predetermined threshold would have been a predictable use of known process-control techniques to initiate denitrification when oxidized nitrogen has accumulated to a level warranting removal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
