DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A. 1: one or more data sets of at least one KPI to determine volumes of an additive to adjust said at least one KPI, in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are being examined.
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 and 13-17 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are not clear with respect to what applicant is claiming. The claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claim 1 is unclear reciting “wherein said plurality of levels comprises a first level of dosing control; wherein said first level comprises volumetric dosing; wherein said plurality of levels comprises a second level of dosing control; wherein said second level comprises at least one key performance indicator (KPI) to optimize control; wherein upon a disruption event, said system reverts to a lower level of dosing control”. The phrase “wherein [...]” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention as elements in the wherein clauses have not been positively claimed. Further, the claim appears to be directed to a functional capability rather than a physical system, because it lacks positive recitation of specific structural components, such as a processor or a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for performing the claimed functions.
Claim 6 is vague and unclear reciting “a serpentine located downstream of said chem pump; a filter located downstream of said serpentine” because it is unclear what a serpentine and a filter are directed to. Is the applicant trying to claim structural elements such as a serpentine fluidic channel and a physical filter; or computer instructions?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "one or more data sets of at least one KPI " in L1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said array assembly" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is vague and unclear reciting “wherein said system comprises at least four chem pumps, each coupled to one chem tote” because it is unclear whether the four chem pumps are part of the first level in claim 4. Further, claim 4 recites a 'first chem tote'; therefore, reciting 'each coupled to one chem tote' renders the claim indefinite."
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Abu Ghdaib et al. (US 2021/0132562 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abu Ghdaib et al. teach:
1. A system for dosing, said system comprising:
a plurality of levels of dosing control (see i.e., chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic) ¶ 0050+);
wherein said plurality of levels comprises a first level of dosing control (see i.e., chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic) ¶ 0050+);
wherein said first level comprises volumetric dosing (see i.e., see i.e., chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic) ¶ 0050+);
wherein said plurality of levels comprises a second level of dosing control (see i.e., see i.e., chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic) ¶ 0050+);
wherein said second level comprises at least one key performance indicator (KPI) (see i.e., The database can track ponds' key process indicators (KPIs) ¶ 0066; sensory array components 304 include an overflow indicator 340, an effluent In indicator 342, an effluent Out indicator 344, a total suspended solids indicator 346, a temperature indicator 348, and a turbidity indicator 350 ¶ 0030).
With regard to limitations in claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15 and 17 (e.g., [...] wherein said second level comprises at least one key performance indicator (KPI) to optimize control; wherein upon a disruption event, said system reverts to a lower level of dosing control, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Regarding claims 2-9, 13, 14, Abu Ghdaib et al. teach:
2. The system of claim 1 wherein said system is used on a wastewater treatment process (see Abstract for example).
3. The system of claim 1 wherein said first level comprises proportional chemistry control (see i.e., The present disclosure introduces data sets that can be provided in the smart hub including, but not limited to: 1) local and regional weather parameters such as precipitation and rainfall, sand storms, temperature, relative humidity, evaporation rates, wind speed, and direction; 2) historical data of the performance of the wastewater treatment plants discharging to the evaporation pond; 3) data collected from discharge streams to the evaporation pond other than the wastewater treatment plant effluent; 4) equipment and systems at a plant that contribute to the industrial wastewater discharge volumes and quality; 5) data from pumps, valves, and oil skimmers in the pond; 6) chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic); 7) data from the monitoring wells surrounding the pond, including historic and current data from the emergency ponds that could support the operation in case the evaporation pond is temporarily out of service; 8) sludge volumes, either generated by the wastewater treatment plant or scraped from the bottom of the evaporation pond on a periodic basis; 9) monitoring of any floatables on the surface of the water in the pond that could slow down or prevent the evaporation process; and 10) monitoring against plantation growing in the pond, if any. ¶ 0051).
4. The system of claim 1 wherein said first level further comprises: at least one influent pump; a meter coupled to said influent pump; wherein said meter is coupled to a controller; a first chem pump coupled to a first chem tote (see i.e., The present disclosure introduces data sets that can be provided in the smart hub including, but not limited to: 1) local and regional weather parameters such as precipitation and rainfall, sand storms, temperature, relative humidity, evaporation rates, wind speed, and direction; 2) historical data of the performance of the wastewater treatment plants discharging to the evaporation pond; 3) data collected from discharge streams to the evaporation pond other than the wastewater treatment plant effluent; 4) equipment and systems at a plant that contribute to the industrial wastewater discharge volumes and quality; 5) data from pumps, valves, and oil skimmers in the pond; 6) chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic); 7) data from the monitoring wells surrounding the pond, including historic and current data from the emergency ponds that could support the operation in case the evaporation pond is temporarily out of service; 8) sludge volumes, either generated by the wastewater treatment plant or scraped from the bottom of the evaporation pond on a periodic basis; 9) monitoring of any floatables on the surface of the water in the pond that could slow down or prevent the evaporation process; and 10) monitoring against plantation growing in the pond, if any. ¶ 0051; The wastewater treatment facilities can require monitoring of the following parameters: 1) influent and effluent volumetric flowrates; 2) head works and solids removing equipment parameters; 3) inlet valves opening; 3) hydrogen sulfide (H2S); 4) scraping frequency and duration; 5) pH (power of Hydrogen) acidity; 6) chemical injection; 7) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); 8) performance of upstream equipment such as desalters, dehydrators, production traps, and low-pressure degassing tanks; 9) chemical oxygen demand (COD); 10) temperature; 11) Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS); 12) pressure; 13) settle-ability; 14) oil content; 15) contact time; 16) turbidity; 17) free and dissolved chlorine; 18) total suspended salts (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and 19) total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). ¶ 0061; The evaporation pond floating probe apparatus 302 includes an external on-demand 306 and a computer 308 [...], a central processing unit (CPU) 318, memory 320, and a battery 322). The computer 306 is connected to a float extension (including a camera apparatus 326 and a light emitting diode (LED) apparatus 328), unified internal bus 330 (connected to an environmental sensory chamber 332), and a float extension 334 (including an ultrasound depth analysis apparatus 336 and an LED apparatus 338 ¶ 0029).
5. The system of claim 4 wherein said controller is capable of directing said first chem pump based on said meter (see i.e., The present disclosure introduces data sets that can be provided in the smart hub including, but not limited to: 1) local and regional weather parameters such as precipitation and rainfall, sand storms, temperature, relative humidity, evaporation rates, wind speed, and direction; 2) historical data of the performance of the wastewater treatment plants discharging to the evaporation pond; 3) data collected from discharge streams to the evaporation pond other than the wastewater treatment plant effluent; 4) equipment and systems at a plant that contribute to the industrial wastewater discharge volumes and quality; 5) data from pumps, valves, and oil skimmers in the pond; 6) chemical dosing systems relevant to the discharge to the evaporation pond (for example, to monitor inventory, chemical types, dosing pumps, tank levels, and chemical concentrations), and evaporation pond levels (current and historic); 7) data from the monitoring wells surrounding the pond, including historic and current data from the emergency ponds that could support the operation in case the evaporation pond is temporarily out of service; 8) sludge volumes, either generated by the wastewater treatment plant or scraped from the bottom of the evaporation pond on a periodic basis; 9) monitoring of any floatables on the surface of the water in the pond that could slow down or prevent the evaporation process; and 10) monitoring against plantation growing in the pond, if any. ¶ 0051).
6. The system of claim 4 further comprising: a serpentine located downstream of said chem pump (see ¶ 0031 for example); a filter (¶ 0062).
7. The system of claim 1 wherein said at least one KPI comprises an influent KPI (see i.e., sensory array components 304 include an overflow indicator 340, an effluent In indicator 342, an effluent Out indicator 344, a total suspended solids indicator 346, a temperature indicator 348, and a turbidity indicator 350 ¶ 0030).
8. The system of claim 7 wherein said at least one KPI further comprises at least one effluent KPI (see i.e., sensory array components 304 include an overflow indicator 340, an effluent In indicator 342, an effluent Out indicator 344, a total suspended solids indicator 346, a temperature indicator 348, and a turbidity indicator 350 ¶ 0030).
9. The system of claim 1 wherein said second level comprises one or more data sets of at least one KPI (see ¶ 0061 for example).
13. The system of claim 1 wherein said plurality of levels comprises a third level of dosing control (see ¶ 0061 for example).
14. The system of claim 13 wherein said array assembly is capable of taking place in-line (see Fig. 9 for example).
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 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Ghdaib et al. (US 2021/0132562 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Abu Ghdaib et al. teach the use of multiple pumps (see ¶ 0050-0052, 0054 for example). However, Abu Ghdaib et al. do not explicitly teach: 16. The system of claim 4 wherein said system comprises at least four chem pumps, each coupled to one chem tote. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multiple pumps (Abu Ghdaib et al. ¶ 0050-0052, 0054), wherein said system comprises at least four chem pumps, each coupled to one chem tote for ease of maintenance. In addition, mere duplication of parts has very little patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights