DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 8, line 2, “is” should be deleted after “polymer”.
Claim 13, line 1, “the” should be added before “holding tank”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
The following terms lack antecedent basis: “the second opening” (claims 1 and 11).
The balance the listed claims are also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
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 that are applied 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, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018232517 A1, hereinafter ‘517, in view of Moos (U.S. 5,720,885).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, ‘517 teaches an apparatus for dewatering sludge comprising:
a tank 102 having an internal space divided by a dividing wall 104 into an intake chamber 106 and an extract chamber 108;
an intake pipe 116 connected to the intake chamber and comprising an intake valve 117 for selectively opening and closing the intake pipe;
a discharge pipe 118 connected to the extract chamber and comprising a discharge valve 119 for selectively opening and closing the discharge pipe;
a transfer pipe 120 providing fluid communication between a bottom portion of the intake chamber and a top portion of the extract chamber;
a pump 110 for selectively creating positive and negative pressure within the intake chamber; and
a screen 130 within the extract chamber 108 positioned between the second opening 124 of the transfer pipe and the discharge pipe 118.
‘517 doesn’t specify that the transfer pipe extends upwardly out of the tank from the intake chamber and downwardly into the tank into the extract chamber and comprises a transfer valve external to the tank for selectively opening and closing the transfer pipe. However, such is taught by Moos.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moos teaches transfer pipe 2 that extends upwardly out of the intake chamber 30 and downwardly into an extract chamber and comprises a transfer valve 19 external to the tank for selectively opening and closing the transfer pipe [as in claim 1].
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to the transfer pipe 120 of ‘517 to include a valve 19 as in Moos, since Moos teaches the benefit of controlling when fluid flows through the pipe to e.g. perform a cleaning of the transfer pipe (col. 4, lines 36-60, figure 3). The skilled man would also recognize the benefit of preventing flow when it is desired to empty the extract chamber. The skilled man would also recognize the benefit of having the valve exterior to the tank for accessibility.
As for claim 4, ‘517 teaches a polymer injection subsystem for adding polymer to the intake chamber (including a polymer injection valve; see paragraph 0033).
As for claim 10, Moos teaches a pressure relief valve 28 in an upper portion of the extract chamber that comprises a ball float shut off. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the relief valve of Moos in the invention of ‘517 since both teach a pump for applying for negative and positive pressure to an intake chamber which requires pressure relief and the ball float shown would prevent overflow of liquid from the system.
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘517 in view of Moos, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Reid (U.S. 9,181,107 B2).
The modified ‘517 doesn’t specify a mixing subsystem for mixing contents of the intake chamber, wherein the subsystem includes a compressed gas connected to one or more accumulator plates positioned in a bottom portion of the intake chamber. However such is taught by Reid.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reid teaches a wastewater treatment take including a mixing system comprising a compressed gas 153 connected to one or more accumulator plates 320 positioned in a bottom portion of the intake chamber, i.a., [as in claims 2-3]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the mixing subsystem of Reid the invention of the modified ‘517, since Reid teaches the benefit of mixing wastewater [0030] that includes coagulating polymer [0031] added thereto—which is desired by ‘517 (see 0033) and would further perfect the treatment of solids thereof.
As for claim 11, since the limitations thereof are a combination of claims 1-2, 4 and 10, claim 11 is also made obvious.
Claims 3, 5-6, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘517 as modified in the rejection of claim 1 (for claims 3 and 5-6) or as modified in the rejection of claim 11 (for claim 12), either in further view of Technifax TF-137: Organic Polymer Feeding (Nalco Company), hereinafter “Technifax”.
The modified ‘517 teaches a polymer injection subsystem including an injection valve [0033] adding coagulating polymer to the intake chamber but doesn’t specify the holding tank and other limitations required by the claims listed above. However, such is taught by Technifax.
PNG
media_image4.png
323
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Technifax teaches a polymer injection subsystem comprising a holding tank (drum or bulk tank) connected to an injection chamber (calibration cylinder of the modular pump system or the second calibration cylinder or one of the mix or aging tanks) through a fill (shown) that is then delivered to a feed point (upon modification this would be the injection valve of ‘517) [as in claims 5 and 12]. The limitations of claim 15 are also obvious since claim 15 is the same as claim 3. Technifax also teaches the holding tank (bulk tank) to include a vent (either the open top shown above or the vent shown at the top of the bulk tank of figure 6) [as in claim 6]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the coagulant polymer injection system of Technifax in the modified ‘517, since ‘517 desires polymer injection into the intake chamber (as shown above), and such a modification would further perfect the invention of ‘571. Also, Technifax specifically teaches the use for adding coagulating aids in sludge dewatering (the objective of ‘517).
Claims 7-9, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘517 as modified in either of the rejections of claim 5 or 12 above, either in further view of Drake et al. (U.S. 4,263, 926), hereinafter “Drake”.
The modified ‘517 teaches a sight tube (e.g. the calibrated cylinders of Technifax) but doesn’t specify a sight tube or sight glass in either the holding tank or injection tank for inspecting the polymers therein, nor doesn’t ‘517 specify an injection chamber vent, but such is taught by Drake.
As shown in figure 2, Drake teaches a sight glass 24 and vent 22 in an injection/holding tank for injecting a polymer in a system via a pump 13 [as in claims 7-9, 13-14 and 16-17]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sight glass (or a sight tube) of Drake in either of tanks/chambers of the modified ‘517 since Drake teaches the benefit of facilitating visual observation of the device during operation (col. 3, lines 12-17). The skilled man would readily realize the benefits of ensuring proper operation. Having the injection chamber vent 22 of Drake in the invention of the modified 517 would have been obvious since Drake teaches the benefit of venting the chamber as needed (col. 3, lines 12-17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779