DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-31 are pending.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-15, 28, 29, and 31 are amended.
Claim 10 is canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-18, and 20-31 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the newly added limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art and further in view of Gunnarsson et al (WO 95/25072). The applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not teach a protected surface area of 200 m2/m3 this limitation is made obvious in view of Gunnarsson.
The remaining arguments are unpersuasive.
The applicant’s Declaration is unpersuasive. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. All the remarks made in the declaration are addressed in the corresponding response to arguments.
The applicant argues that Follestad and JP ‘397 are not analogous art because that instant invention is directed to a “carrier made using a bimodal or multimodal HDPE, which…had surprising benefits” and that the “fact that Follestad, JP ‘397 and Applicant utilize bimodal or multimodal polymers to produce their respective articles does not make them related”. In response to applicant's argument that Follestad and JP’397 are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Follestad and JP ‘397 are pertinent to the problem which the inventor was concerned. Specifically, Follestad JP ‘397 and the inventor are concerned with making HDPE polymers more stress resistant. The application of the polymer does not need to be the same for the references to be analogous art.
The applicant argues that Follestad is not pertinent to the problems faced by the Applicant because bottle caps are subjected to substantially different conditions than carriers in an MBBR reactor. This argument is not persuasive because bottle caps and carries are both subject to impact with other caps or carriers and contact with liquids of differing conditions. The applicant states that bottle caps are not subject to impact during normal use or harsh chemical conditions. This argument is not persuasive because Follestad teaches that the impact resistance of the material is important (Charpy impact) (see Follestad para. 0031), therefore the impact resistance of the material is known to be significant. Further the applicant has not provided any evidence that the chemical conditions within a typical MBBR are “harsh” in comparison with the produced by different drinks sealed by a bottle cap.\
The applicant argues that JP ‘397 is not the same field of endeavor because JP ’97 is in the field of pipes and bottles. This argument is not persuasive because JP ‘397 does not limit itself to pipe and bottles. JP ‘379 is directed to multimodal polymer “suitable for use in molding applications” (see pg. 1, Technical -field). The carrier of the instant application is a molded multimodal polymer, therefore JP ‘379 and the instant invention are in the same field of endeavor. Further JP ‘379 teaches that the polymer is suitable for extruding (see pg. 1, last paragraph) and it is noted that the claims are not limited to an extruded carrier.
The applicant argues that the bottles and pipe of JP ‘397 are subject to different stresses than the carries in an MBBR. This argument is not persuasive because the claims are not directed to the stresses that the carrier is subjected to and JP ‘397 teaches that the disclosed polymer has “high environmental stress crack resistance” (see pg. 2, 3rd paragraph), therefore it is obviously applicable to environments with high environmental stresses and applicable to the problem desired to be solved by the applicant.
The applicant argues that Follestad does not teach the limitations of claim 31. The rejection is now made in view of Follestad and Gunnarsson et al (WO 95/25072). The applicant argues that Follestad does not teach two different HDPEs. The applicant is correct that this limitation is not explicitly disclosed by Follestad, however it would have been obvious because Follestad teaches that the polymer can contain 5% other polyolefins (see para. 0036) and HDPE is a polyolefin. The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to use two different HDPE in view of Follestad because bimodal HDPEs are more expensive and Follestad teaches that it is desirable to keep the material inexpensive. This argument is not persuasive because Follestad teaches the use of bimodal HDPE.
The applicant argues that Follestad, as modified, would not render the amended claim obvious because the cap of Follestad does not “consist of” a bimodal HDPE. This argument is not persuasive because Follestad teaches that the cap “may contain” minor amounts of other polymers. Follestad does not require other additives, therefore it would have been obvious to removal any additives such that the cap “consists of” only bimodal HDPE.
The applicant argues that the instant invention is not using a “known cap” and that the research into deterring the material was anything but routine. This argument is not persuasive because the prior art teaches that it is known that bimodal HDPE polymers have improved stress resistance. Therefore one skilled in the art would have expected a carrier made with a bimodal HDPE to have improved stress resistance.
The applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not have found the bottle cap of Sonego to be useable in an MBBR. This argument is not persuasive because Sonego teaches that the bottle cap is able to function as a biofilm carrier, therefore one skilled in the art would expect a bottle cap to function as a biofilm carrier.
The applicant again argues that JP ‘397 is non-analogous art. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to use the polymer of JP ‘397 in the carrier of Welander because the stresses that the pipe of JP ‘397 and a carrier in an MBBR are subjected to are different. This argument is not persuasive because both materials require stress resistance under impact and one skilled in the art would expect a material with high stress resistance in one environment to have high stress resistance in another environment. The applicant has not shown that the stresses that a carrier is subjected to in an MBBR are significantly greater or different than those a pipe or bottle would be subjected to while in transport or use.
The applicant argues the there is no evidence in Welander that the carries survive the stresses they are subjected to. This argument is not persuasive because the carriers in Welander are used as biofilm carriers, therefore they inherently survive as carriers long enough for the biofilm to grow and for the excess biofilm to been to be removed from the carrier. Therefore the carrier of Welander must inherently be capable of withstanding the stress of impact for some period of time and it would be desirable for the carrier Welander to be able to withstand the stresses of impact. Therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the polymer of JP ‘397 in the carries of Welander because it is known to be a polymer with good stress resistance.
The applicant argues that they did not know that a bimodal polymer would resist the specific types of stresses in an MBBR. This argument is not persuasive because it is known in the art of polymers that bimodal polymers have increased stress resistance (see Follestad para. 0007, 0012).
The applicant argues that the claimed invention has an unexpected result and is not a simple substitution of materials. Thia argument is not persuasive because the polymer claimed by the applicant is known in the prior art (see at least Follestad and JP ‘397) and in known to solve the specific issue of increases stress resistance.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 20-31 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 Claim 1:
The claim states “the carrier is comprised of a carrier material” and “the carrier material consists of…” It is not clear how the term “consists of” limits the claim when used in combination with “comprised of”. The carrier could include multiple carrier materials.
The claim states “adapted to resist cracking”. This limitation render the claim indefitne because it is not clear what structural feature is required by this limitation. For example it is not clear if it is intended to limit a level or stress resistance or a type of material. For the purposes of examination any material that is not designed to crack is considered to be adapted to resist cracking.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim states “a second high density polyethylene”. However a second HDPE has already been required by claims 31 and 11, from which claim 12 depends. It is therefore not clear if a third HDPE is being required or if the “second high density polyethylene” is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 31:
The claim states “adapted to…resist cracking”. This limitation render the claim indefitne because it is not clear what structural feature is required by this limitation. For example it is not clear if it is intended to limit a level or stress resistance or a type of material. For the purposes of examination any material that is not designed to crack is considered to be adapted to resist cracking.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
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 13 is 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 does not requires any limitations not already included in claim 31, therefore it does not further limit claim 31. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 11-18, 20-26, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson et al (WO 95/25072) in view of Follestad et al (EP 1790580) and Welander et al (US 2016/0376175).
Regarding Claim 1:
Gunnarsson teaches a carrier for a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR),the carrier being in the form of a structure defining a protected surface area of at least 200 m2/m3 (“preferably larger than 200 m2/m3”) (see pg. 6 lines 1-5) wherein the carrier is adapted to accommodate biofilm growth (microbial film) (see pg. 6 line 1) and to carry the biofilm in the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) (carrier elements are kept moving) (see pg. 3 lines 25-35), wherein the carrier is comprised of a carrier material such that the carrier is adapted to resist cracking (is subjected to collisions) due to impacts (collision) of the carrier with other carriers or MBBR components during use (see pg. 3 lines 30-35).
Gunnarsson does not teach the carrier material consists of a high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution. Gunnarsson is silent as to the material of the carrier.
Follestad teaches a polymer material that consists of a high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Follestad further teaches that the polymer has high stress resistance (see para. 0005-0007, 0029, 0031, 0048). Follestad teaches that it is desirable to consist essentially of the bimodal HDPE (see para. 0036), therefore it would have been obvious to remove all other materials and only consist of bimodal HDPE (see MPEP 2144.04 II)
Welander teaches a carrier for a biofilm in an MBBR made from molded polyethylene (see para. 0047, 0008, 0065).
Gunnarsson, Follestad and Welander are analogous inventions in the art of molded materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified carrier material of Gunnarsson with the bimodal HDPE of Follestad because it improves the weight and thereby cost to strength ratio of the material (see Follestad para. 0005-0012) and it is known that HDPE can be used for biofilm carriers (see Welander para. 007, 0008, 0065).
Regarding Claim 2:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1, wherein the carrier material has a density between 0.9 and 1.1 g/cm3 (940 to 980kg/m3) (see Follestad para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 31:
Gunnarsson teaches the carrier to carry a biofilm in a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), wherein the carrier is in the form of a structure defining a protected surface area of at least 200 m2/m3 (“preferably larger than 200 m2/m3”) (see pg. 6 lines 1-5) wherein the carrier is adapted to accommodate biofilm growth and resist cracking (is subjected to collisions) due to impacts (collisions) of the carrier with other carriers or MBBR components during use (see pg. 3 lines 30-35) and is formed, shaped, and adapted to enable a biofilm to grow on the carrier (microbial film) (see pg. 6 line 1).
Gunnarsson does not teach wherein the carrier material comprises at least 5 wt.% of a first high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution, and a second high density polyethylene, the second high density polyethylene having unimodal, bimodal or multimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a bimodal or a multimodal molecular weight distribution.
Follestad teaches a polymer material comprises at least 5 wt.% of a first high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution (up to 10% other materials is at least 90% HDPE having a bimodal molecular weight distribution) (see para. 0036, 0024), and a second polymer (see para. 0036) whereby the carrier material has a bimodal or a multimodal molecular weight distribution (a bimodal polymer is used, therefore it has a bimodal or multimodal weight distribution). Follestad does not explicitly teach the second high density polyethylene having unimodal, bimodal or multimodal molecular weight distribution. Follestad further teaches that HDPE can have unimodal, bimodal or multimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a known unimodal, bimodal or multimodal molecular weight distribution HDPE as the second polymer of Follestad because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for another known polymer obviously resulting in a moldable polymer 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.). Follestad further teaches that the polymer has high stress resistance (see para. 0005-0007, 0029, 0031, 0048).
Welander teaches a carrier for a biofilm in an MBBR made from molded polyethylene (see para. 0047, 0008, 0065).
Gunnarsson, Follestad and Welander are analogous inventions in the art of molded materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified carrier material of Gunnarsson with the carrier material of Follestad because it improves the weight and thereby cost to strength ratio of the material (see Follestad para. 0005-0012) and it is known that HDPE can be used for biofilm carriers (see Welander para. 007, 0008, 0065).
Regarding Claims 6, 28 and 29:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 5 wt. %, (and further at least 20 wt%) of a high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a bimodal or a multimodal molecular weight distribution (up to 10% other polymers, therefore at least 90% bimodal HDPE) (see Follestad para. 0036). Multimodal encompasses bimodal (see Follestad para. 0013), therefore both limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 10 wt. % of said first high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution (at least 90wt %) (see Follestad para. 0036).
Gunnarsson, as modified, does not explicitly teach the second high density polyethylene with a second unimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution. Follestad further teaches that HDPE can have unimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a known unimodal molecular weight distribution HDPE as the second polymer of Follestad because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for another known polymer obviously resulting in a moldable polymer 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.). Two bimodal polymers will inherently have a multimodal weight distribution because multimodal encompasses bimodal weight distributions.
Regarding Claim 8:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 50 wt. %, (at least 90%)of a high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a bimodal or a multimodal molecular weight distribution (see Follestad para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 9:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 50 wt. % of said first high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution (at least 90wt %) (see Follestad para. 0036).
Gunnarsson, as modified, does not explicitly teach the second high density polyethylene with a second unimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution. Follestad further teaches that HDPE can have unimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a known unimodal molecular weight distribution HDPE as the second polymer of Follestad because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for another known polymer obviously resulting in a moldable polymer 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.). Two bimodal polymers will inherently have a multimodal weight distribution because multimodal encompasses bimodal weight distributions.
Regarding Claim 11:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises said first high density polyethylene with a first bimodal molecular weight distribution and said second high density polyethylene (Follestad para. 0036).
Gunnarsson, as modified, does not explicitly teach the second high density polyethylene with a second bimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution. Follestad further teaches that HDPE can have bimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a known unimodal, bimodal or multimodal molecular weight distribution HDPE as the second polymer of Follestad because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for another known polymer obviously resulting in a moldable polymer 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.). Two bimodal polymers will inherently have a multimodal weight distribution because multimodal encompasses bimodal weight distributions.
Regarding claim 12:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 11, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 10 wt.% of a first high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution (see Follestad para. 0036) and a second high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding Claim 13:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises a first high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution and at least one more high density polyethylene having a unimodal or a bimodal or a multimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution (see rejection of claims 31 above).
Regarding Claim 14:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1, the carrier material comprises a lower molecular weight fraction (LMW), and a higher molecular weight fraction (HMW), wherein the bimodal molecular weight distribution of the high density polyethylene has a peak ratio of the LMW fraction to the HMW fraction is between 10:1 to 1:10 (10:90 to 90:10) (see Follestad para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 15:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1, the carrier material comprises a lower molecular weight fraction (LMW) (see para. 0025), and a higher molecular weight fraction (HMW), wherein the LMW is a homopolymer or a copolymer and the HMW is a homopolymer or copolymer (see Follestad para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 16:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1, wherein the carrier has a structure that allows for protected surfaces for biofilm growth (a cap shape has an internal protected surface) (see Follestad para. 0039).
Regarding Claim 17:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1.
Welander further teaches a carrier that is disc shaped or saddle shaped (see figs. 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the carrier of Gunnarsson, as modified, to disc or saddle shaped, as disclosed by Welander, because it is a simple change in shape without changing the function of the device and disc and saddle shaped carriers are known in the art (see Welander figs. 6 and 7). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 16, wherein the protected surfaces are facilitated by the presence of holes, wells, protrusions (see Gunnarsson fig. 1), honeycomb structure or raster structures, making the carrier more prone to stress damage.
Regarding Claim 20:
Gunnarsson, as modified teaches a moving bed biofilm reactor comprising the carrier the according to claim 31 (carrier are kept moving) (see Gunnarsson pg. 7 lines 9-15)
Regarding Claim 21:
Gunnarsson, as modified teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), according to claim 20, wherein the MBBR process is a High energy MBBR process. The claims are directed to an apparatus (MBBR), therefore process limitations only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art structure must be capable of the same process. As Gunnarsson teaches an MBBR it can be operated as “high energy”.
Regarding Claim 22:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) according to claim 20, wherein the MBBR process includes mixing the carriers in the bioreactor utilizing submerged mechanical mixers (mechanical stirring) (see Gunnarsson pg. 7 lines 9-15).
Regarding Claim 23:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), according to claim 20, wherein the MBBR process is performed in a bioreactor having inner walls with defects or high roughness (the MBBR reactor is an existing reactor, therefore at some point there will inherently be defects) (see Gunnarsson pg. 8, lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 24:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), according to claim 20, wherein wastewater purified in the MBBR process contains hazardous substances being detrimental to the carrier. The combination is silent to the type of water being purified, however as the claims are directed to an apparatus method limitations (type of water treated) only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same method. In the instant case, as the MBBR of Welander treats wastewater it can treat water that contains hazardous substances being detrimental to the carrier.
Regarding Claim 25:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), according to claim 20, wherein the MBBR process function is dependent on addition of external chemical substances. The combination is silent as to the addition of external chemicals, however as the claims are directed to an apparatus method limitations (addition of additives) only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same method. In the instant case, the reactor of Welander is an MBBR external chemicals can be added.
Regarding Claim 26:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), according to claim 20, wherein the MBBR process is a treatment for the production of drinking water. The combination is silent to the type of water being purified, however as the claims are directed to an apparatus method limitations (type of water treated) only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same method. In the instant case, as the MBBR of Welander treats water it can treat drinking water.
Regarding Claim 30:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 31, wherein the carrier material comprises at least 20 wt. % of said first high density polyethylene with a bimodal molecular weight distribution (at least 90wt %) (see Follestad para. 0036).
Gunnarsson, as modified, does not explicitly teach the second high density polyethylene with a second unimodal molecular weight distribution, whereby the carrier material has a multimodal molecular weight distribution. Follestad further teaches that HDPE can have unimodal molecular weight distribution (see para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a known unimodal molecular weight distribution HDPE as the second polymer of Follestad because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for another known polymer obviously resulting in a moldable polymer 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.). Two bimodal polymers will inherently have a multimodal weight distribution because multimodal encompasses bimodal weight distributions.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson et al (WO 95/25072) in view of JP 2016538397 A, English machine transition provided, hereafter referred to as ‘397) and of Welander et al (US 2016/0376175).
Regarding Claim 1:
Gunnarsson teaches a carrier for a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR),the carrier being in the form of a structure defining a protected surface area of at least 200 m2/m3 (“preferably larger than 200 m2/m3”) (see pg. 6 lines 1-5) wherein the carrier is adapted to accommodate biofilm growth (microbial film) (see pg. 6 line 1) and to carry the biofilm in the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) (carrier elements are kept moving) (see pg. 3 lines 25-35), wherein the carrier is comprised of a carrier material such that the carrier is adapted to resist cracking (is subjected to collisions) due to impacts (collision) of the carrier with other carriers or MBBR components during use (see pg. 3 lines 30-35).
Gunnarsson does not teach the carrier material consists of a high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution. Gunnarsson is silent as to the material of the carrier.
‘397 teaches a polymer material that consists (PE polymer as the sole polymer) of a high density polyethylene having a bimodal molecular weight distribution (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph, pg. 7, 3rd paragraph)
Welander teaches a carrier for a biofilm in an MBBR made from molded polyethylene (see para. 0047, 0008, 0065).
Gunnarsson, ‘397 and Welander are analogous inventions in the art of molded materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified carrier material of Gunnarsson with the bimodal HDPE of ‘397 because it has improved mechanical strength and crack resistance (See ‘397 pg. 2, 8th paragraph) and it is known that HDPE can be used for biofilm carriers (see Welander para. 007, 0008, 0065).
Regarding Claim 2:
Gunnarsson, as modified, teaches the carrier according to claim 1, wherein the carrier material has a density between 0.9 and 1.1 g/cm3 (954 to 962 kg/m3) (see ‘397 pg. 3, 9th paragraph).
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 27:
Gunnarsson, as modified, is silent as to the crossover point, and delta end value of the carrier. The crossover point and delta end values are properties of the material, as the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to the claim (bimodal HDPE with same density) the properties are presumed to be inherent. Therefore, a crossover point at an angular frequency of <15 rad/s, or below 6 rad/s, a crossover point at a modulus between 25000-45000 Pa, and a delta end value less than 35 degrees more preferably less than 25 degrees, are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01, I).
Conclusion
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 1/15/2026