DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19-26 are amended..
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Silver does not teach “an activated sludge disposed within at least one ore the node chamber and the cathode chamber”. This argument is not persuasive because Silver teaches that the anode chamber contains EOP (see para. 0046) which is sludge (“end-of pipe BOD (e.g., sludge water)”) (see para. 0042). This argument is further not persuasive because the cathode chamber is fed with effluent from anaerobic digestion that is aerated. Effluent from an aerobic digestion contains sludge and biological denitrification is occurring therefore there is some amount of activated sludge (see para. 0067).
The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to inoculate the anode chamber and/or the cathode chamber with activated sludge because Silver teaches away from the use of activated sludge. This argument is not persuasive because Silver teaches away from the use of “pathogenic sludge” (see para. 0008). Silver does not teach away from the use of activated sludge.
The applicant argues that there are unexpected results due to inoculating the anode and/or cathode chamber with activated sludge. This argument is not persuasive because there is no evidence of unexpected results. Table 3 of the instant specification shows that COD degradation efficiency and VFA degradation efficiency are lower with no inoculum, however this is not evidence on an unexpected result. It is well known to inoculate bioelectrochemical reactors (see Siegert para. 0059, Li, pg. 2, 5th paragraph from bottom, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph) before treatment and Silver teaches that the electrodes in the anode and cathode chamber contain microbial films (see Silver fig. 2, para. 0045) before treatment therefore there is inherently some type of inoculation required in Silver to provide the microbes that form the microbial film. The instant invention does not provide any evidence that inoculating with activated sludge has any unexpected results compared to any other type of inoculum or after a start-up period with no inoculum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silver et al (US 2013/0112601).
Regarding Claim 1:
Silver teaches the device for simultaneously denitrifying aerated wastewater and treating raw wastewater, containing: at least one anode chamber equipped inside with at least one anode (anode chamber 2), for treating raw wastewater and at least one cathode chamber equipped inside with at least one cathode (cathode chamber 3), for denitrifying aerated wastewater (see para. 0069, fig. 5);, and an activated sludge disposed within at least one of the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (EOP) (see para. 0046 which is activated sludge one in the biological reactor (“end-of pipe BOD (e.g., sludge water)”) (see para. 0042); wherein the anode chamber is attached to the cathode chamber via a separator (membrane 4) in order to transport anions and/or cations between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see para. 0069). The type of raw wastewater and the aerated wastewater are the materials being worked on by the system (“treating raw wastewater” and “denitrifying aerated wastewater”) and are therefore the intended use of, and not part of, the system. The intended use only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of treating the same material. In the instant case as the system of Silver is able to treat “wastewater from industrial water treatment facilities” and “any suitable wastewater stream” (see para. 0002 and 0011) it would be cable of treating the water sources in the instant claims
Regarding Claim 2:
Silver teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the cathode chamber and/or anode chamber further comprise inside a reference electrode (see para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 3:
Silver teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the anode and/or cathode are conductive electrode(s) (stainless steel) (See para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 4:
Silver teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the conductive electrode(s) comprise(s) carbon fibers or stainless steel (see para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 5:
Silver teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the anode and cathode chambers comprise a stirring means inside the chamber continuously or periodically (cathode chamber is constantly mixed, therefore there are inherently means for stirring inside the cathode chamber) (see para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 6:
Silver teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device is connectable to an aeration tank (nitrifying reactor 6) (see para. 0071). It is further noted that the claims do not actually require the aeration tank as it is what the device can be connected to, not part of the claimed device itself.
Regarding Claim 7:
Silver teaches the system for simultaneously performing: anaerobiotic elimination of organic compounds such as organics, suspended solids and volatile fatty acids, and pathogens from raw wastewater comprising the organic compounds, and removal of nitrate and/or nitrite from aerated wastewater comprising the nitrate and/or nitrite; the system comprising; 1) the device according to claim 1, wherein, in the anode chamber, electrogenic bacteria (electricigen microbes) degrade the organic compounds in the raw wastewater and provide electrons through the anode (see para. 0047, 0058); and in the cathode chamber, denitrifying bacteria receive the electrons via the cathode and reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite in the aerated wastewater to N2 gas (see para. 0058, 0041).
Regarding Claim 8:
Silver teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein system further comprises and 2) a means for adjusting the potential between the cathode and the anode or between the cathode or the anode versus the reference electrode (adjust the external resistance between the anode and cathode), wherein the means is connected to the anode and the cathode, or to the anode, the cathode and the reference electrode (see para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 9:
Silver teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the electrogenic bacteria comprise at least one kind of bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Geobacter (see para. 0047), Desulfovibrio, Syntrophobacter, Clostridium, Alicycliphilus, Thauera, Acidovorax, Xanthomonas, Bacteroides, Rhodopseudomonas, Thiomonas, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Dechloromonas, Pseudomonas, Azoarcus, and Ralstonia.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2013/0112601) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Siegert (US 2020/0339453).
Regarding Claim 10:
Silver teaches the system according to claim 7.
Silver does not teach wherein the denitrifying bacteria comprise at least one kind of bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Syderoxidans, Gallionela, Thiobacillus, Thauera, Mycobacterium, Alicycliphilus Azoarcus, Acidovorax, Psudomonas, Dechloromonas, Methylibium, Burkholderia, Leptothrix, Ralstonia, Aromatoleum, Cupriavidus, Delfia, Nitrosomonas, Methylococcus, and Maribacter.
Siegert teaches bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Syderoxidans, Gallionela,Thiobacillus, Thauera, Mycobacterium, Alicycliphilus Azoarcus, Acidovorax, Psudomonas, Dechloromonas, Methylibium, Burkholderia, Leptothrix, Ralstonia, Aromatoleum, Cupriavidus, Delfia, Nitrosomonas, Methylococcus, and Maribacter in a bioelectrochemical reactor (see para. 0041).
Silver and Siegert are analogous inventions in the art of devices for treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the denitrifying bacteria od Siegert, such as Nitrosomonas, in the denitrifying (cathode) chamber of Silver because it is the simple substitution of an unspecified bacteria for a known denitrifying bacteria, obviously resulting in denitrification of the water 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.).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2013/0112601) in view of Li et al (CN 113683188, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 11:
Silver teaches the method for simultaneously performing; anaerobiotic elimination of organic compounds and pathogens from raw wastewater comprising the organic compounds, and removal of nitrate and/or nitrite from aerated wastewater comprising the nitrate and/or nitrite; by using a device comprising at least one anode chamber equipped inside with at least one anode (anode chamber 2), and at least one cathode chamber (cathode chamber 3) equipped inside with at least one cathode; and wherein the anode chamber is attached to the cathode chamber via separator (membrane 4) in order to transport anions and/or cations between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see para. 0069, fig, 5), the method comprising: 1) adding the raw wastewater into the anode chamber (water after separator 9) (see para. 0070) and adding the aerated wastewater into the cathode chamber (water form nitrifying reactor) (see para. 0071); wherein electrons are provided through the anode (adjusting the external resistance) (see para. 0062); and wherein, in the cathode chamber, denitrifying bacteria receive the electrons via the cathode and reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite to N2 gas (see para. 0058).
Silver does not teach inoculating the anode chamber and/or cathode chamber.
Li teaches inoculating a microbial electrochemical reactor (see pg. 5 Embodiment 1) with activated sludge (see pg. 5, 5th paragraph, 7th paragraph, Embodiment 1).
Silver and Li are analogous inventions in the art to treating wastewater with bioelectrochemical reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to inoculate the reactor of Silver with activated sludge at 0% to 60% capacity, as disclosed by Li, because it is the simple addition of a known step to a known treatment process, obviously resulting in a reactor with an existing microbial population, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12:
Silver teaches the method for simultaneously performing; anaerobiotic elimination of organic compounds such and pathogens from raw wastewater comprising the organic compounds, and removal of nitrate and/or nitrite from aerated wastewater comprising the nitrate and/or nitrite; by using a device comprising at least one anode chamber equipped inside with at least one anode (anode chamber 2), and at least one cathode chamber (cathode chamber 3) equipped inside with at least one cathode (see para. 0069), the method, comprising adding the raw wastewater into the anode chamber (water after separator 9) (see para. 0070) and adding the aerated wastewater into the cathode chamber (water form nitrifying reactor) (see para. 0071); wherein, in the anode chamber, electrogenic bacteria degrade the organic compounds and thereby provide electrons through the anode (adjusting the external resistance) (see para. 0062); and in the cathode chamber, denitrifying bacteria receive the electrons via the cathode and reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite to N2 gas (see para. 0058).
Silver does not teach inoculating the anode chamber and/or cathode chamber.
Li teaches inoculating a microbial electrochemical reactor (see pg. 5 Embodiment 1) with activated sludge (see pg. 5, 5th paragraph, 7th paragraph, Embodiment 1).
Silver and Li are analogous inventions in the art to treating wastewater with bioelectrochemical reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to inoculate the reactor of Silver with activated sludge at 0% to 60% capacity, as disclosed by Li, because it is the simple addition of a known step to a known treatment process, obviously resulting in a reactor with an existing microbial population, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the electrogenic bacteria comprise at least one kind of bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Geobacter (see Silver para. 0047), Desulfovibrio, Syntrophobacter, Clostridium, Alicycliphilus, Thauera, Acidovorax, Xanthomonas, Bacteroides, Rhodopseudomonas, Thiomonas, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Dechloromonas, Pseudomonas, Azoarcus, and Ralstonia.
Regarding Claim 21:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising inoculating a the anode and/or cathode chamber with the activated sludge (see Li pg. 5 Embodiment 1) with activated sludge at an amount of 0% to 60% capacity thereof (approximately 26%: 40ml of anoxic activated sludge out of 1.5L total volume) (see Li pg. 5, 5th paragraph, 7th paragraph, Embodiment 1).
Regarding Claim 22:
Silver, as modified, teaches method according to claim 21.
The combination does not teach wherein the inoculating is inoculating the anode chamber and/or the cathode chamber with the activated sludge at an amount of 20% to 25% capacity thereof. However the prior art inoculum amount of about 26% is close to the prior art higher limit of 25%. Therefore one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected the inoculum amount of the prior art would have the same or a similar performance to the inoculum amount claimed. Therefore it would have been obvious to inoculate the anode chamber and/or cathode chamber with activated sludge at an amount of 20% to 25% capacity thereof. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 23:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not disclose the total level in nitrogen added to the cathode chamber. Silver further teaches that the process removes nitrogen (NO3) from the water (see Silver para. 0096) and that the process can be optimized for denitrification (see para. 0096). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the nitrogen removal and achieve a result in which the aerated wastewater after the step 2 comprises total 100 mg/L or less of N03- and N02- as nitrogen equivalent.
Claim(s) 14, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2013/0112601) and Li et al (CN 113683188, English machine translation provided) as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Siegert (US 2020/0339453).
Regarding Claim 14:
Silver teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not teach wherein the denitrifying bacteria comprise at least one kind of bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Syderoxidans, Gallionela,Thiobacillus, Thauera, Mycobacterium, Alicycliphilus Azoarcus, Acidovorax, Psudomonas, Dechloromonas, Methylibium, Burkholderia, Leptothrix, Ralstonia, Aromatoleum, Cupriavidus, Delfia, Nitrosomonas, Methylococcus, and Maribacter.
Siegert teaches bacteria selected from the group of consisting of species of Syderoxidans, Gallionela,Thiobacillus, Thauera, Mycobacterium, Alicycliphilus Azoarcus, Acidovorax, Psudomonas, Dechloromonas, Methylibium, Burkholderia, Leptothrix, Ralstonia, Aromatoleum, Cupriavidus, Delfia, Nitrosomonas, Methylococcus, and Maribacter in a bioelectrochemical reactor (see para. 0041).
Silver and Siegert are analogous inventions in the art of devices for treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the denitrifying bacteria od Siegert, such as Nitrosomonas, in the denitrifying (cathode) chamber of Silver because it is the simple substitution of an unspecified bacteria for a known denitrifying bacteria, obviously resulting in denitrification of the water 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.).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
Silver teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the device further comprises and a reference electrode in the cathode chamber or anode chamber) (see para. 0062); wherein the anode chamber is attached to the cathode chamber via separator (membrane 4) in order to transport anions and/or cations between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see para. 0069, fig, 5), and the method further comprises monitoring potential either to the cathode or the anode versus the reference electrode (potential is applied and adjusted to the cathode. Silver further teaches that the potential should be set to the optimum for COD removal or denitrification) (see para. 0062).
Silver dose not teach the cathode is poised at -0.4 to -0.6 V or -0.1 to -1V vs the references electrode (Ag/AgCl).
Siegert teaches an Ag/AgCl reference electrode and adjusting the potential (see para. 0051).
Silver and Siegert are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified reference electrode of Silver with the Ag/AgCl reference electrode of Siegert because it is the simple substitution of one known reference electrode with another reference electrode obviously resulting in the ability to adjust and control the potential to the cathode 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.). It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to poise the potential applied to the cathode vs the reference electrode to -0.1 to -1V or -0.4- to -0.6 because the potential is a known result effective variable controlling the reduction of COD and denitrification (see Silver para. 0062). “[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.).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2013/0112601) and of Li et al (CN 113683188, English machine translation provided) as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Colprim et al (ES 2547031, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 15:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not teach the raw wastewater is livestock wastewater or supernatant thereof.
Colprim teaches a method for the simultaneous elimination of organic compounds and nitrogenous compounds from wastewater, wherein the raw wastewater is livestock wastewater (pig slurry) (see pg. 10, last paragraph).
Silver and Colprim are analogous inventions in the art to treating organic matter and nitrogen in a bioelectrochemical reactor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Silver to treat livestock wastewater (pig slurry) as disclosed by Colprim because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat a known waste stream (containing nitrogen and organic matter) with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 16
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not teach the raw wastewater is swine wastewater or supernatant thereof.
Colprim teaches a method for the simultaneous elimination of organic compounds and nitrogenous compounds from wastewater, wherein the raw wastewater is swine wastewater (pig slurry) (see pg. 10, last paragraph).
Silver and Colprim are analogous inventions in the art to treating organic matter and nitrogen in a bioelectrochemical reactor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Silver to treat swine wastewater (pig slurry) as disclosed by Colprim because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat a known waste stream (containing nitrogen and organic matter) with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 17:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not teach the aerated wastewater is aerated livestock wastewater or supernatant thereof with a low level of organic compounds.
Colprim teaches a method for the simultaneous elimination of organic compounds and nitrogenous compounds from wastewater, wherein the wastewater being treated is livestock wastewater (pig slurry) (see pg. 10, last paragraph).
Silver and Colprim are analogous inventions in the art to treating organic matter and nitrogen in a bioelectrochemical reactor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Silver to treat livestock wastewater (pig slurry) as disclosed by Colprim, thereby aerating a portion of the pig slurry to be aerated, because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat a known waste stream (containing nitrogen and organic matter) with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 18:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Silver does not teach the aerated wastewater is aerated livestock wastewater or supernatant thereof with a low level of organic compounds.
Colprim teaches a method for the simultaneous elimination of organic compounds and nitrogenous compounds from wastewater, wherein the wastewater being treated is swine wastewater (pig slurry) (see pg. 10, last paragraph).
Silver and Colprim are analogous inventions in the art to treating organic matter and nitrogen in a bioelectrochemical reactor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Silver to treat swine wastewater (pig slurry) as disclosed by Colprim, thereby aerating a portion of the pig slurry to be aerated, because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat a known waste stream (containing nitrogen and organic matter) with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2013/0112601) in view of Li et al (CN 113683188, English machine translation provided) and Zhang et al (CN 108675403, English Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 24:
Silver teaches the method for simultaneously performing anaerobiotic elimination of organic compounds and pathogens from raw wastewater comprising electrogenic bacteria and the organic compounds, and removal of nitrate and/or nitrite from aerated wastewater comprising denitrifying bacteria and the nitrate and/or nitrite; by using a device containing at least one anode chamber equipped inside with at least one anode (anode chamber 2), and at least one cathode chamber equipped inside with at least one cathode (cathode chamber 3); and wherein the anode chamber is attached to the cathode chamber via a separator (membrane 4) in order to transport anions and/or cations between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see para. 0069), comprising 1) adding the raw wastewater into the anode chamber and adding the aerated waste water into the cathode chamber (see para. 0070); and then 2) adjusting the potential between the anode and the cathode, wherein, in the anode chamber (see para. 0062), the electrogenic bacteria degrade the organic compounds and thereby provide electrons through the anode; and in the cathode chamber, the denitrifying bacteria receive the electrons via the cathode and reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite to N2 gas insoluble in water (see para. 0058).
Silver does not teach salts of the phosphate are precipitated in the cathode chamber.
Zhang teaches a cathode chamber in which nitrogen is removed and phosphate is precipitated (see abstract).
Silver and Zhang are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater with electrolytic cells. It would have been obvious to include the phosphate salt precipitation of Zhang, when treating waste containing phosphate, in the cathode chamber of Silver because it allows for the collection of a usable product stream and prevention of phosphorous contamination into the environment (see Zhang pg. 2, 1st paragraph).
Silver does not teach inoculating the anode chamber and/or cathode chamber.
Li teaches inoculating a microbial electrochemical reactor (see pg. 5 Embodiment 1) with activated sludge at an amount of 0% to 60% capacity thereof (approximately 26%: 40ml of anoxic activated sludge out of 1.5L total volume) (see pg. 5, 5th paragraph, 7th paragraph, Embodiment 1).
Silver, as modified, and Li are analogous inventions in the art to treating wastewater with bioelectrochemical reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to inoculate the reactor of Silver with activated sludge at 0% to 60% capacity, as disclosed by Li, because it is the simple addition of a known step to a known treatment process, obviously resulting in a reactor with an existing microbial population, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 25:
Silver teaches the method for simultaneously performing anaerobiotic elimination of organic compounds such as organics, suspended solids and volatile fatty acids, and pathogens from raw wastewater comprising electrogenic bacteria and the organic compounds, and removal of nitrate and/or nitrite from aerated wastewater comprising denitrifying bacteria and the nitrate and/or nitrite; by using a device containing at least one anode chamber equipped inside with at least one anode (anode chamber 2), and at least one cathode chamber equipped inside with at least one cathode (cathode chamber 3) (see para. 0069), and a references electrode in the cathode chamber or anode chamber (see para. 0062); and wherein the anode chamber is attached to the cathode chamber via separator (membrane 4) in order to transport anions and/or cations between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see para. 0069), the method comprising adding the raw wastewater into the anode chamber and adding the aerated waste water into the cathode chamber (see para. 0070); wherein, in the anode chamber (see para. 0062), the electrogenic bacteria degrade the organic compounds and thereby provide electrons through the anode; and in the cathode chamber, the denitrifying bacteria receive the electrons via the cathode and reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite to N2 gas insoluble in water (see para. 0058).
Silver does not teach salts of the phosphate are precipitated in the cathode chamber.
Zhang teaches a cathode chamber in which nitrogen is removed and phosphate is precipitated (see abstract).
Silver and Zhang are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater with electrolytic cells. It would have been obvious to include the phosphate salt precipitation of Zhang, when treating waste containing phosphate, in the cathode chamber of Silver because it allows for the collection of a usable product stream and prevention of phosphorous contamination into the environment (see Zhang pg. 2, 1st paragraph).
Silver does not explicitly teach wherein the aerated wastewater has a BOD/N ratio less than or equal to 3. Silver further teaches that the method can be used on different sources of water containing nitrates (see para. 0011).
Silver does not teach inoculating the anode chamber and/or cathode chamber.
Li teaches inoculating a microbial electrochemical reactor (see pg. 5 Embodiment 1) with activated sludge at an amount of 0% to 60% capacity thereof (approximately 26%: 40ml of anoxic activated sludge out of 1.5L total volume) (see pg. 5, 5th paragraph, 7th paragraph, Embodiment 1).
Silver, as modified and Li are analogous inventions in the art to treating wastewater with bioelectrochemical reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to inoculate the reactor of Silver with activated sludge at 0% to 60% capacity, as disclosed by Li, because it is the simple addition of a known step to a known treatment process, obviously resulting in a reactor with an existing microbial population, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 26:
Silver, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein more than 30% of phosphate phosphorus present in the aerated wastewater is removed in terms of the amount by weight of phosphorus (45% 5 day removal rate) (see Zhang pg. 4, Example 1). Zhang teaches up to a 97% removal rate of phosphate (see Zhang pg. 4, Example 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the operating condition of the cathode chamber in order to optimize the removal rate of phosphate.
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 2/15/2026