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
The Amendments filed January 2nd and 7th, 2026 have been entered. Examiner acknowledges the addition of new claims 9 and 10. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2nd, 2025. Therefore, the rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2nd and 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ginestet does not disclose extracting sludge when a measurement of the sludge blanket is substantially equal to a predetermined distance from the sludge extraction level, asserting that Ginestet instead determines minimum and maximum extraction levels based on sludge concentration or density and performs extraction at levels within that interval. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the recited “step of measuring the sludge blanket” reasonably encompasses determining the vertical position or distribution of sludge within the reactor. In wastewater treatment processes, the location of a sludge blanket corresponds to a region of increased sludge concentration relative to the surrounding liquid phase. Accordingly, determining the sludge concentration or density profile along the height of the reactor inherently provides information regarding the position of sludge layers and thus the location of the sludge blanket. Ginestet discloses measurement means configured to determine sludge concentration and/or density at different levels within the reactor and to determine corresponding minimum and maximum extraction levels based on the measured distribution of sludge within the chamber. Ginestet further discloses extracting sludge at one or more extraction levels located between the minimum and maximum extraction levels determined from these measurements. Thus, the extraction level are determined relative to the measured vertical distribution of sludge in the reactor. Because the measured sludge concentration or density profile inherently indicates the location of the sludge layers within the reactor, including the interface corresponding to the sludge blanket, the determination of extraction levels based on such measurements constitutes measuring the position of the sludge blanket within the meaning of the claim. Extraction performed at levels determined from these measurements therefore occurs relative to the measured position of the sludge blanket.
Applicant further argues that Ginestet does not disclose extraction occurring when the measured sludge blanket is substantially equal to a predetermined distance from the extraction level. However, once the sludge distribution profile is determined and corresponding extraction levels are established relative to that profile, selecting extraction levels between the determined minimum and maximum levels inherently defines a distance relationship between the sludge layer and the extraction level. Thus, extraction performed at selected levels between the minimum and maximum extraction levels is necessarily performed at a defined distance to the detected sludge layer. Accordingly, Ginestet’s disclosure of measuring sludge concentration or density to determine extraction levels and performing extraction at levels determined from that measurement reasonably teaches or suggests the claimed steps of measuring the sludge blanket and extracting sludge based on the measured position of the sledge layer.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet (WO-2019053114-A1) in view of Ho (US5525231) Bott (US20160137537), and LeMaire (US-20130319938-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ginestet discloses a method for treating a wastewater effluent comprising carbon pollution, nitrogen pollution and phosphorus pollution (Ginestet par. [0011]), in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) (Ginestet par. [0039]), comprising: a step of supplying the SBR, during which an amount of effluent to be treated is introduced (Ginestet par. [0126]); the SBR comprising: a chamber capable of containing a wastewater-sludge mixture comprising various levels (Ginestet claim 1 “enclosure”), with each level being defined by a sludge concentration and/or density (Ginestet abstract of original and Fig. 1); a sludge bed, comprising PAOs, located at the bottom of the chamber (Ginestet par. [0030]), above which a sludge blanket level is defined (Ginestet par. [0127] “stratification”); a measurement probe for determining a minimum level and a maximum level for extracting sludge in the chamber (Ginestet par. [0057] and abstract “means for determining a minimum level and a maximum level of sludge extraction“); and an extractor capable of extracting sludge at variable levels between the minimum extraction level and the maximum extraction level (Ginestet par. [0142-0143]); 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 par. [0032]); a third aeration step, allowing the dephosphatation of the effluent by the PAOs to be carried out (Ginestet par. [0030-033] and [0156-0157] “REACT phase”); 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 par. [00158] during the “SETTLE phase”); 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 teaches the “Fill and Draw” phase occur concurrently at Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B and illustrations of Fig. 5A-5F show the level in the chamber remains substantially constant above 4A where treated water is removed); wherein the method further comprises a step of measuring the sludge blanket (Ginestet par. [0057] and abstract “means for determining a minimum level and a maximum level of sludge extraction“).
Ginestet does not explicitly disclose the effluent to be treated is introduced near the bottom of the chamber, in the sludge bed, preferably via a distribution network covering the bottom of the chamber; or the aeration being controlled so as to simultaneously carry out either nitrification, or nitritation; and a step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge with a sludge index that is greater than 100 mL/g and a decanting speed of less than 2 m/h at a predetermined level between the minimum extraction level and the maximum extraction level, preferably in the vicinity of the sludge blanket; and wherein the step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge is carried out when the measurement of the sludge blanket is substantially equal to a predetermined distance from the sludge extraction level.
Ho discloses introducing influent into the settled sludge bed in a sequencing batch reactor (Ho col. 2 lines 29-30). Ho explains that distributing feed into the sludge bed improves reactor performance and promotes biological nutrient removal cycles including anaerobic and aerobic phases involving phosphorous-accumulating organisms.
LeMaire discloses controlling aeration in biological treatment systems based on measured nitrate/nitrite (NOx) concentrations, including initiating or terminating aeration when measured thresholds are reached (LeMaire par. [0055-0057] and {0082]). Such control enables selective operation of nitrification or nitritation reactions.
Bott discloses selectively removing poorly settling sludge fractions in biological wastewater treatment systems in order to maintain desirable settling characteristics of the biomass. Bott explains that the sludge volume index (SVI) is a measure of sludge settleability and indicates that high SVI values correspond to poorly settling sludge (Bott par. [0064]). Bott further teaches selectively wasting sludge fractions exhibiting poor settling characteristics from the reactor to improve sludge settling performance and maintain stable operation (Bott par. [0052-0057]). Because sludge having high SVI values corresponds to sludge that settles slowly and remains suspended in the upper portion of the sludge blanket, such sludge inherently exhibits low settling or decanting velocities. Accordingly, the poorly settling sludge fractions described in Bott correspond to the “light sludge” described in the present application, which is characterized as having high SVI values and a low decanting speed.
Ginestet further discloses that the sludge within the reactor forms a stratified sludge column comprising different sludge layers located at different vertical levels within the chamber (Ginestet par. [0127]). Ginestet teaches determining extraction levels within this sludge column based on measurements of the characteristics of sludge present at different vertical levels, including measurements of sludge concentration and/or density (Ginestet par. [0055-0060]). By determining the characteristics of sludge at different vertical positions within the reactor, Ginestet identifies the location of the various sludge layers within the reactor and thereby determines the vertical position of the settled sludge mass relative to the reactor height. Ginestet further discloses determining minimum and maximum extraction levels within this stratified sludge column and extracting sludge at one or more extraction levels located between these levels (Ginestet par. [0161-0162]).
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 sequencing batch reactor method of Ginestet by supplying influent into the settled sludge bed as taught by Ho, by controlling aeration based on NOx measurements as taught by LeMaire, and by selectively removing poorly settling sludge fractions having high sludge volume indices as taught by Bott. Such modifications represent routine optimization of biological nutrient removal reactors in order to improve sludge settling, maintain stable nitrification/denitrification operation, and control sludge blanket characteristics during reactor operation.
Regarding claim 3, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of extracting at least a portion of the light sludge (by suggestion of Bott) is carried out during the supply step and/or during the decanting step (Ginestet Figs. 5A and 5B show that the extracting “Draw” step occurs during the supply “Fill” step).
Regarding claim 4, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, comprising, during the reaction sequence, a step of injecting air into the chamber (Ginestet “REACT phase” includes aeration phases par. [0156-0157] as well as Ho as both REACT periods are aerated and comprises an “air blower” Ho col. 7 par. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third aeration step is followed by a step of post- denitrification under anoxic conditions (Ginestet par. [0026] explains that denitrification occurs in the anaerobic/anoxic phase which follows the aeration phase prior par. [0036]), preferably implemented when the third step is a total or partial nitrification step (LeMaire par. [0082] suggests that it may be preferable to stop this anoxic step when denitritation (Nitrites immediately oxidize in solution to increase nitrate concentration) reduces the concentration reaches a predetermined low threshold); or the third aeration step is followed by a step of denitritation under anoxic conditions, preferably implemented when the third step is a total or partial nitritation step; or the third aeration step is followed by a step of deammonification under anoxic conditions, preferably implemented when the third step is a partial nitritation step.
Regarding claim 6, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the decanting step (Ginestet SETTLE phase par. [0158]) is preceded by a step of injecting air into the chamber (Ginestet aerated REACT phase par. [0156-0157] precedes SETTLE phase).
Regarding claim 7, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, comprising a step of densifying sludge using a densification device inside the chamber (Bott par. [0065-0068] “gravimetric selector”).
Regarding claim 8, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, 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 col. 1 lines 65-67 suggests that aerobic/anoxic periods are determined by pollutant presence implying process control by nitrate level).
Regarding claim 9, Ginestet in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sludge blanket is measured continuously (Ginestet par. [0173] and Fig. 6A-6F describe an embodiment of the invention applied to continuous flow treatment which Ginestet describes continuous mode to contains steps in which the “continuous selection of the particles (also called granules) of biomass..” which indicates measurement occurs continuously as extraction is based on the measurement).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet (WO-2019053114-A1) in view of Ho (US5525231) Bott (US20160137537), 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 in view of Ho, Bott and LeMaire discloses the treatment method as claimed in claim 1.
However, the combination of Ginestet, Ho, LeMaire and Bott does not explicitly 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).
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 as modified by Ho, LeMaire and Bott in order to regulate nitrogen removal reactions within the reactor. Because denitrification is the well-known biological process that occurs under anoxic conditions when nitrate or nitrite is present and oxygen is absent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the measured NOx concentration in a control algorithm to determine when to initiate an anoxic denitrification phase in order to remove accumulated nitrate. Implementing an anoxic denitrification step when a measured NOx concentration exceeds a predetermined threshold therefore represents a predictable application of the known NOx monitoring and control techniques described by WRF to the sequencing batch reactor system of Ginestet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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