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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/147,954 application filed on December 29, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-12 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus or system.
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending
Examined
13-20
2
1 and 5
3, 4 and 6-12
1 and 3-20
1 and 3-12
All claims are drawn to an apparatus.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the 35 USC §112 rejections but adds a new 35 USC §112 rejection (which was alluded to in the prior Office action (OA)), but essentially maintains the 35 USC §103 rejections from the previous OA (i.e, 01/14/2026), in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated April 10, 2026, Applicant amended the claims to address the rejections and claim interpretations of the prior Office action (OA), to clarify the claim language, and to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies new grounds of rejections in this OA but maintains the prior art of record.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim states: “. . .wherein the processing unit has a pH value between 5.5 and 6.5.” This is unclear because the processing unit is a structure and the significance of the pH of this structure would be unclear. Is it the pH value of the materials in the processing unit that is intended?
Although Applicant’s specification uses similar language, it also states in [0038]: “Moreover, the processing unit 100 and the desulfurization bacteria culture tank 200 may further include a pH controller 400, which can be used to monitor the pH of the liquid in the processing unit 100 and the desulfurization bacteria culture tank 200.”
Claims 3-12 depend on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tee et al. (US20220241724; Tee) in view of Stetter et al. (US6,217,766, Stetter), Nguyen et al. (Removal of trace organic contaminants by an MBR comprising a mixed culture of bacteria and white-rot fungi, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 148, 2013, pages 234-241; Nguyen) and Zahmatkesh et al., (Bioremoval of humic acid from water by white rot fungi: exploring the removal mechanisms," AMB Express, Vol. 6, No. 118, 2016, pages 1-13; Zahmatkesh)(of record).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 9-12, Tee discloses a biological wastewater processing system (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a processing unit 100 ([0002], [0006]) for removing humic acid or color from wastewater (this is an intended use and a capability of the system giving the use of similar or identical components), the processing unit comprising a plurality of porous carriers 110p ([0027], [0029]-[0035]),
wherein desulfurization bacteria are immobilized on the plurality of porous carriers ([0027], [0035], [0036]); and
a desulfurization bacteria culture tank 200 for cultivating desulfurization bacteria ([0006], [0007], [0021]),
wherein the desulfurization bacteria culture tank is connected to the processing unit through a connection part 300-1, 300-2 ([0021], Fig. 1);
wherein sulfate ions generated by metabolic activity of the desulfurization bacteria cultivated in the desulfurization bacteria culture tank are transferred to the processing unit through the connection part ([0004], [0044], [0045], [0048], [0052], [0053], where production of oxidized sulfate and sulfate ions is noted; Examiner interprets this functionality as the microorganisms producing the liquid)9.
Therefore, Tee discloses the claimed invention, except
the inclusion of white-rot fungi (WRF) with the desulfurization bacteria,
the pH value of the [materials in the] processing unit is between 5.5 and 6.5, and
wherein a ratio of desulfurization bacteria to white-rot fungi is between 1:15 and 1:5,
Stetter discloses a sulfur-reducing bacterium capable of reducing sulfite and sulfate to sulfide and removing sulfur compounds from water, with a specific growth profile, including having optimum growth under certain conditions, including a pH of between 5 and 9 (Abstract).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with effective and workable pH ranges for wastewater treatment using sulfur reducing bacteria, including the recited range, or above or below such range, for optimum microorganism growth and effectiveness in contaminant removal, particularly since Tee discloses the use of controllers of pH where the one can monitor and control water quality parameters such as pH to obtain a suitable pH for effective treatment (Tee, [0045]).
Nguyen is a research article about degradation of trace organic contaminants (TrOC) by a white-rot fungus-augmented membrane bioreactor (MBR), where the results show that white-rot fungal enzyme (laccase) coupled with a redox mediator (1-hydroxy benzotliazole, HBT), could degrade TrOC that are resistant to bacterial degradation (Abstract). Overall, the fungus-augmented MBR showed better TrOC removal compared to a system containing conventional activated sludge (Id.). A combination of white-rot fungi with activated sludge (which includes bacteria) may bring about synergistic degradation of TrOC (p. 235, 1st col.). That is, a mixed culture of bacteria and a white-rot fungus (WRF) in a fungus-augmented MBR can achieve better TrOe removal than a system containing fungus or bacteria alone (Nguyen, Conclusion, p. 240, 1st col.).
The importance of the relative proportions of WRF and bacteria is also considered: For example, Nguyen states “. . . a systematic assessment of the relative performance of fungus and activated sludge, and the implications of combining them in a continuous flow system is absent from the literature” (p. 235, 1st col.). The viable fungal and bacterial count in the fungus-augmented MBR supernatant varied over the operating period . . .monitoring the fungal count serves the important purpose of confirming the presence of viable fungi in the MBR (p. 237, 2nd col.). Table 1 on p. 238 also shows that the relative amounts or ratio of bacteria and WRF is considered.
Also, Zahmatkesh discloses research regarding WRF strains screened on agar plates for their ability to bleach humic acid (HA). HA color removal was compared with changes in concentration and molecular size distribution, and HA removal by WRF was explained by distinguishing the sorped HA from degraded/transformed HA (p. 2, 2nd col.). It was shown that different WRF species have different capabilities for biosorption of HA (p. 12, 2nd col.).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to synergistically combine the desulfurization bacteria with white-rot fungi, and to routinely experiment with various workable combination ratios of these microorganisms with WRF, as suggested in Nguyen, and to immobilize the combination on an appropriately configured porous carrier as disclosed in Tee, in terms of fill rate, pore size and specific surface area, since it is known that the configuration of the porous carrier will affect the rate, effectiveness and efficiency of contaminant removal, and that WRF will degrade humic acid and can decolorize wastewater, as explained by Zahmatkesh, and because the combination of the noted microorganisms with WRF has shown a certain synergy for improved removal of organic contaminants compared to using bacteria alone or WRF alone, as evidenced by Nguyen.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3: The processing unit further comprises a partition plate disposed therein, and the plurality of porous carriers are disposed in a space formed by the partition plate (Tee, [0023], [0036], [0062]); Claim 4: The partition plate has a plurality of holes whose size is smaller than the size of the porous carriers (Tee, [0023]); Claim 5: The biological wastewater processing system further comprises an aeration device, wherein the aeration device is connected to the bottom of the processing unit and the bottom of the desulfurization bacteria culture tank through a connection part (Tee, [0043]); Claim 9: The biological wastewater processing system wherein the pH value of the desulfurization bacteria culture tank is between 1 and 4 (claim 1 analysis; also, pH of material worked upon is a functional feature not necessarily affecting prior claimed structure); Claim 10: The filling rate of the plurality of porous carriers in the processing unit is between 60% and 90% (Tee, [0037] and claim 1 analysis); Claim 11: The pore size of the plurality of porous carriers is between 200 micrometers and 2000 micrometers (Tee, [0031] and claim 1 analysis); and Claim 12: The specific surface area of the plurality of porous carriers is between 800 m/m3 and 8000 m2/m3 ([0031] and claim 1 analysis).
Regarding claims 6-8, Tee, Stetter, Nguyen and Zahmatkesh combined discloses or suggests the biological wastewater processing system as claimed in claim 1, except further comprising a first inlet for introducing the wastewater containing humic acid or color into the processing unit, wherein the first inlet is disposed at the bottom of the processing unit.
Tee shows an inlet at the bottom of the processing and cultivating tanks, although thee processing tank inlet is for air (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place inlets and outlets for ingress and egress of the wastewater at suitable locations of the processing unit and it is known that one can place one or more inlets and outlets at either the top, side or bottom of a processing unit depending on suitability for the intended operation or design choice.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 7: The biological wastewater processing system further comprises a second inlet for introducing a wastewater containing sulfur into the desulfurization bacteria culture tank, wherein the second inlet is disposed at the bottom of the desulfurization bacteria culture tank (claim 6 analysis); and Claim 8: The biological wastewater processing system further comprises an outlet for exporting the processed wastewater out of the processing unit, wherein the outlet is disposed at the top of the processing unit (claim 6 analysis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04-10-2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. In view of the claim amendments, Examiner has modified and attempted to clarify the rejections.
With respect to the ratio between desulfurization bacteria and white-rot fungi, Applicant states that the claimed ratio is not an arbitrary or result-effective variable, but rather a critical parameter that directly affects the operability and performance of the system and argues that the configuration differs fundamentally from the systems disclosed in Nguyen.
In response, Examiner notes that Nguyen is employed to show that the combination of WRF and bacteria for effective wastewater treatment is known, regardless of whether Nguyen employs a suspended system or porous carriers. Importantly, the use of porous carriers for holding the microorganisms is already addressed in Tee so it’s not necessary that Nguyen also disclose porous carriers. Also, since Nguyen teaches that one can employ varying combinations of each component (Table 1), where the combination could have an effect on the results, it would have been obvious to routinely experiment with various ratios to optimize the treatment results based on the relative proportion of each component.
Applicant also mentions that Examiner employs impermissible hindsight, and that there is no motivation to arrive at the claimed invention absent the noted hindsight since the cited references fail to recognize clogging caused by excess desulfurization bacteria, fail to address the balance between different microorganisms in an immobilized carrier system, and fail to provide any guidance on selecting a ratio to achieve stable operation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is discussed in the above patentability analysis, including the motivation such as the synergistic combination of WRF and bacteria, as described in Nguyen.
Examiner notes that the argued clogging issue is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As noted above, the importance of the relative proportion of WRF and bacteria, or their ratio, is discussed in Nguyen (see patentability analysis above). Further, any combination of two components such as bacteria and WRF would require a decision on the relative proportion of each component, and it would be obvious to garner an optimum relative ratio through routine experimentation.
With respect to the amended claims, Examiner has added one or more additional or clarified rationales with respect to any new or added/amended limitations. As such, Examiner believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the modified patentability analysis above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights