DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are amended.
Claims 14-21 are new.
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 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Stensel does not disclose the ”step of controlling the amount of the raw influent fed to the dense biomass aggregates generating process and/or a step of controlling the amount of the waste activated sludge (WAS) extracted from the first source of the waste activated sludge (WAS) and/or from the second source of the waste activated sludge (WAS)”. This argument is not persuasive because Stensel teaches controlling the amount of the waste activated sludge (WAS) extracted from the first source of the waste activated sludge (controlling the amount of underflow wasted (WAS) from the secondary clarifier to control STR. Select the solids wasting rate (rate of WAS)) (see para. 0033 and para. 0075).
The applicant argues that Stensel controls the concentration of mixed liquor in suspension, not the quantity of sludge extracted at the send clarifier. This argument is not persuasive because Stensel further teaches selecting (controlling) the wasting rate (see para. 0075) and wasting sludge to control the STR (see para. 0033).
The applicant argues that it is unclear why someone would look to Stensel for managing and controlling particle granulation of activated sludge. This argument is not persuasive because Stensel is directly related to controlling the granulation of activated sludge (control granular separation from flocculent sludge at the desired granule size) (see para. 0033, 0069, whole document).
The previous 112 rejection are rejected in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16:
The claims states “comprises of consists in aerobic granular sludge…” The phrase “consists in” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it is a typographical error or “consists of” or “exists in” or if it is intended to have some other meaning.
Regarding Claim 15:
The phrase “consists in” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it is a typographical error or “consists of” or “exists in” or if it is intended to have some other meaning.
The claim refers to “internal plant returns”. There is no “plant” referred to in claim 1. It is not clear what types of streams would be considered “internal plant returns”. The phrase, although used in the specification, is not described in the specification. Reference number 68, shown in fig. 3 does not come from part of the treatment system. It is therefore not clear what “plant” is being referred to, what is considered “internal” , or what “returns” are limited to.
For the purposes of examination “internal plant returns” is interpreted as any influent source from an industrial source (a plant) or recycle from the wastewater treatment plant.
Regarding Claim 17:
The claim refers to “the biomass aggregate production and/r sustaining unit 18”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “sustaining unit 18”.
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim states “a step of subjecting the dense biomass aggregates to the biological treatment where retention of a biomass-fraction with a higher solids retention time (SRT), which results in the accumulation of organisms with biological nutrient removal activity”. It is not clear what occurs to the biomass fraction with a higher STR.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stensel et al (US 2020/0048131).
Regarding Claim 1:
Stensel teaches the method for controlled biomass densification in a biological treatment of a raw influent, comprising: a step of subjecting the raw influent to a biological treatment of free suspended biomass (granular sludge is suspended biomass) (see para. 0009), thereby producing a biomass comprising activated sludge (AS) (aerobic process contains granular sludge) (see para. 0033); a step of separation and/or clarification of the activated sludge (AS) (secondary clarifier) (see para. 0033), thereby producing an effluent (clarifier effluent) and a return activated sludge (RAS) (sludge recycled to the aerobic process zone) (see para. 0033, fig. 5c); a step of extracting at least part of the return activated sludge (RAS) and/or part of the activated sludge (AS), the return activated sludge (RAS) and/or the activates sludge (AS) forming a first source of a waste activated sludge (WAS) (portion of the secondary clarifier underflow wasted) (see para. 0033); a step of external density-based selection of at least part of the return activated sludge (RAS) and/or part of the activated sludge (AS) (activated sludge flow to the granular sludge classifier) (see para. 0033, fig, 5c), thereby generating an overflow forming a second source of waste activated sludge (WAS) from which waste activated sludge (WAS) is extracted, and an underflow comprising a first part of dense biomass aggregates (recycle of granular sludge) (see para. 0033); a step of producing and/or sustaining a second part of dense biomass aggregates, by a dense biomass aggregates generating process, with at least part of the raw influent (anoxic reactors) (see para. 0038); a step of subjecting the second part of dense biomass aggregate to the biological treatment (see fig., 5c); a step of subjecting the first part of dense biomass aggregates of the underflow to the biological treatment and/or to the dense biomass aggregates generating process (see para. 0033, 0038, fig. 5c); thereby obtaining a densified biomass; a step of controlling the amount of the raw influent fed to the dense biomass aggregates generating process and/or a step of controlling the amount of the waste activated sludge (WAS) extracted from the first source of the waste activated sludge (WAS) (portion of clarifier underflow to control the solids retention time) and/or from the second source of the waste activated sludge (WAS):
Stensel does not explicitly teach “the method being carried out so as to maintain a densified biomass having: a dSVI between 35 and 100 ml/g, and/or more than 10% of particles with a particle size of between 100 µm and 1000 µm, and/or a dSVI30/dSVI10 ratio comprised between 70% and 95%”.
Stensel further teaches that the hydraulic loading is controlled to achieve the desired granular size (see para. 0033), and that granular size is a result effective variable determining the settleability of the sludge (see para. 0045). Therefor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the process to maintain a densified biomass with more than 10% of particles with a particle size of between 100 µm and 1000 µm in order to optimize the settling qualities of the sludge. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dense biomass aggregate generating process of the step of producing and/or sustaining the second part of dense biomass aggregates is performed in a contact zone fed by the underflow (classifier granule recycle stream) and at least part of the raw influent (see para. 0038).
Regarding Claim 4:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dense biomass aggregate generating process of the step of producing and/or sustaining the second part of dense biomass aggregates comprises an aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic biofilm-based process (anoxic reactor) (see para. 0038) wherein the dense biomass aggregate generating process is fed with at least part of the raw influent (anoxic reactor is fed with the influent), thereby generating a biofilm biomass, a biofilm biomass excess being sloughed in the form of free suspended nitrifying or denitrifying or anaerobic biofilm to the biological treatment process step.
Regarding Claim 5:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: a fermentation step allowing the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA), the method comprising: a step of controlling the amount of activated sludge (AS) or return activated sludge RAS subjected to the fermentation step (anaerobic reactor); and/or a step of controlling the amount of the underflow subjected to the fermentation step; and/or a step of controlling the amount of the stream containing VFA fed to the dense biomass aggregate production and/or sustaining unit, (flow rates are controlled) (see para. 0035, 0036).
Regarding Claim 6:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of feeding the dense biomass aggregates generating process with an additional stream comprising at least VFA and/or readily biodegradable carbon (see para. 0037-0039, fig, 5c).
Regarding Claim 7:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1.
Stensel does not explicitly teach wherein the step of controlling the amount of the raw influent fed to the dense biomass aggregates generating process, and/or the step of controlling the amount of the waste activated sludge (WAS) extracted from the first source of the waste activated sludge (WAS) and/or from the second source of the waste activated sludge (WAS), are configured so as to maintain a densified biomass having: a dSVI between 40 and 70 ml/g, and/or between 20% and 40of particles with a particle size of between 200 µm and 500 µm maintained, and/or a dSVI30/dSVI10 ratio comprised between 70% and 85%.
Stensel further teaches that the hydraulic loading is controlled to achieve the desired granular size (see para. 0033), and that granular size is a result effective variable determining the settleability of the sludge (see para. 0045). Therefor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the process to maintain a densified biomass with more than 10% of particles with a particle size of between 100 µm and 1000 µm in order to optimize the settling qualities of the sludge. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 8:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the step of separation is performed in a clarifier (secondary clarifier) (see para. 0033)
Stensel does not explicitly teach said clarifier being operated so as to achieve: a thickening performance achieving a solids concentration between 20 to 30 g/L at the bottom of the clarifier, and/or a RAS rate of ca. 30 to 60% of the influent flow-rate, and/or an upflow velocity (SOR) between 1.0 and 4.0 m/h, and/or a surface load rate between 8.5 and 33.8 kgMLSS.m-2h-1, or the step of separation is performed in a membrane reactor (MBR), said membrane reactor (MBR) being operated so as to achieve: a reduced frequency of maintenance cleaning cycles of the polymeric membranes wherein maintenance cleanings are consistently and significantly reduced together with reagent consumption to a frequency of once a week or below without shortening the membrane life time.
Stensel further teaches that the system is controlled to maintain the MLSS within a desired range (see para. 0070, 0074, 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust classifier operation in order to achieve a surface load rate of the clarifier between 8.5 and 33.8 kgMLSS.m-2h-1. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 15:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the raw influent comprises or consists in at least part of internal plant returns (internal recycle) (see para. 0076, 0085).
Regarding Claim 16:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second part of dense biomass aggregates sustained comprises or consists in aerobic granular sludge (AGS) or biofilm (granular sludge grows as a biofilm) (see para. 0009).
Regarding Claim 17:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biomass aggregate production and/or sustaining unit is a contact or feast zone (high soluble bCOD, therefore a feast zone) (see para. 0038).
Regarding Claim 18:
Stensel teaches the method for controlled biomass densification in a biological treatment of an influent, comprising: a step of subjecting the influent to a biological treatment of free suspended biomass (granular sludge is suspended biomass) (see para. 0009), thereby producing a biomass comprising activated sludge (AS) (aerobic process contains granular sludge) (see para. 0033); a step of separation and/or clarification of the activated sludge (AS) (secondary clarifier) (see para. 0033), thereby producing an effluent and a return activated sludge (RAS) (sludge recycled to the aerobic process zone) (see para. 0033, fig. 5c); a step of extracting at least part of the return activated sludge (RAS) and/or part of the activated sludge (AS), the return activated sludge (RAS) and/or the activated sludge (AS) forming a source of a waste activated sludge (WAS) (some portion of the secondary clarifier underflow is wasted) (see para. 0033); a step of producing and/or sustaining dense biomass aggregates by a dense biomass aggregates generating process, with at least part of the influent (anoxic reactors) (see para. 0038); a step of subjecting the dense biomass aggregates to the biological treatment where retention of a biomass-fraction with a higher solids retention time (SRT) (see fig., 5c), which results in the accumulation of organisms with biological nutrient removal activity (control of flocculent and granular sludge to meet treatment needs) (see para. 0033)
Stensel does not explicitly teach the method being carried out so as to maintain a densified biomass having: a dSVI between 35 and 100 ml/g, and/or more than 10% of particles with a particle size of between 100 pm and 1000 pm, and/or a dSVI30/dSVI10 ratio comprised between 70% and 95%.
Stensel further teaches that the hydraulic loading is controlled to achieve the desired granular size (see para. 0033), and that granular size is a result effective variable determining the settleability of the sludge (see para. 0045). Therefor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the process to maintain a densified biomass with more than 10% of particles with a particle size of between 100 µm and 1000 µm in order to optimize the settling qualities of the sludge. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 19:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising a fermentation step (anaerobic reactor) allowing the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA), the method comprising the controlling of an amount of a stream containing VFA fed to a dense biomass aggregate production and/or sustaining unit (see para. 0035, 0036).
Regarding Claim 20:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the biomass aggregate production and/or sustaining unit is a contact or feast zone (high soluble bCOD, therefore a feast zone) (see para. 0038).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stensel et al (US 2020/0048131) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Murthy et al (US 2018/009687).
Regarding Claim 3:
Stensel teaches the method of claim 2.
Stensel does not teach wherein the contact zone comprises a Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor placed within said contact zone
Murthy teaches a membrane aerated biofilm reactor placed within a contact zone (anoxic zone) (see para. 0060).
Stensel and Murthy are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified anoxic reactor of Stensel with a membrane aerated biofilm reactor, as disclosed by Murthy, because it is the simple substitution of one reactor with another known reactor able to maintain anoxic conditions, obviously resulting in the anoxic treatment of the wastewater with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 9 and 21 would not have been obvious in view of the closest prior art, Stensel. Stensel does not teach “a biological tank…having a first inlet, a second inlet…being configured to be fed at the first inlet with at least a part of the raw influent…the biological tank being further configured to be fed at the second inlet with the produced second part of dense biomass aggregates…” It would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the inlets of the biological tank of Stensel because the raw influent of Stensel is treated in the anoxic reactor (dense biomass aggregate production unit), therefore the inlet for the raw influent and the second part of dense biomass aggregates is necessarily the same in Stensel.
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 12/15/2025