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 .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 07 August 2026 has been entered; claims 1-20 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9 and 12-13 of the Remarks, filed 07 August 2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 12 with specific reference to Wegner have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the weir of Wegner does not meet the limitations of the weir as now claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogush, as discussed below in detail. Briefly, the Examiner notes that weir 45 of Simoneau is disposed at a boundary of the first and settling portions/tanks of the device of Simoneau.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Bogush on Pages 9-10 and 13-14 of the Remarks are not found to be persuasive because the limitations “tube settling media fully disposed in the water in the secondary settling tank” do not appear to be supported by Applicant’s disclosure, and because in operation, the water proceeds up through the tube media of Bogush to the outlet, such that when the water level reaches the outlet, the tube media of Bogush is disposed within the water. Bogusch teaches that the installation of tube settling media/tubular passages 12 into conventional clarifiers (also meeting the limitations “fully disposed in the water of the secondary settling tank”), as discussed below in the rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the dependent claims on Pages 10-12 and 14-15 of the Remarks, it is submitted that all arguments therein were addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, the limitations which appear to lack support in Applicant’s Specification are: “passing the water in the secondary settling tank up through a tube settling media fully disposed in the water of the secondary settling tank onto a trough and then flowing the water into an outlet chamber” (claim 1) and “a tube settling media fully disposed in the water of the secondary settling tank, wherein the tube settling media is configured for the water to flow upwards therethrough onto a trough and then into an outlet chamber” (claim 12). Paragraphs [0091, 0092] of the Specification disclose water flowing up through the tube settling media 24 (thereby obtaining a state where the tube media is fully disposed in the water), but Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to disclose that the tube settling media is fully disposed in the water before the water travels up the tube media and into the outlet chamber, as required by claim 1 and the “configured to” limitations in claim 12.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-20, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view of Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025), and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, and “Bogusch”.
With respect to claim 1, Hanna teaches a method and system for clarifying water (Abstract; Paragraphs [0020, 0070]), the method comprising:
a) passing the water through at least one reactor comprising at least one inlet and outlet and containing a first composition through which water flows (“configured for contacting the water with a first composition”) (Paragraphs [0020-0022, 0048-0052, 0070]), wherein the first composition comprises: i) a first polymer in a proportion of approximately 10% to 70% by weight (discrete range within “up to 70% by weight”) (Paragraph [0048]), il) an alkaline earth metal soluble salt (“a first soluble salt of a group IIA metal”) in a proportion of approximately 0.5 to 35% by weight (discrete range within “0.5% to 50% by weight”) (Paragraph [0048]), and iii) water, in a proportion to make up the balance of 100% weight (Paragraph [0048;
b) then passing the water from the at least one reactor into a primary clarifier (“settling tank”) having an outlet for solids removal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0070]);
c) then passing the water from the primary settling tank to a secondary clarifier (“settling tank”) having an outlet for solids removal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0023-0025, 0070, 0071, 0073]).
Hanna does not specifically teach that water is passed over a weir as recited.
Simoneau teaches passing water over a weir 45 on the side of a clarifier tank, wherein the weir forms a boundary between a first solids separation zone 2 and a second solids separation zone 4 (Fig. 1A; Paragraphs [0038-0042]), wherein zones 2 and 4 of Simoneau are tanks, effectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the weir of Simoneau to the primary clarifier tank of Hanna because Hanna teaches passing water from a clarifier as discussed above, and because Simoneau teaches that decantation of water over the weir allows for first settling coarse solids in first solids separation zone 2 followed by settling and separation of fine solids in second solids separation zone 4 (Paragraphs [0038, 0041, 0042]; Fig. 1A).
Hanna does not specifically teach d) then passing the water in the secondary clarifier settling tank up through a tube settling media onto a trough and then flowing the water into an outlet chamber, wherein the tube settling media comprises a plurality of sloped tubular channels disposed adjacent to each other.
Bogusch teaches passing water in a clarifier up through a tube settling media (see tubular passages 12 in Fig. 1) onto a trough (see Column 4, lines 19, wherein the tube media fully disposed in water as water flows up towards the trough) and then flowing the water into an effluent collection compartment 16 (“an outlet chamber”), wherein the tube settling media comprises a plurality of sloped tubular passages (“channels”) disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1; Column 3, line 58 through Column 4, line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the tube settling media comprising passages 12 of Bogusch to the secondary clarifier of Hanna because Hanna teaches that the solids are settling in the secondary clarifier, and Bogusch teaches that the installation of tube settling media/tubular passages 12 into conventional clarifiers increases treatment capacity while maintaining an acceptable level of effluent quality with increased suspended solids removal (Column 4, lines 28-34). The Examiner submits that installation of the tube settling media of Bogush into the secondary clarifier of Hanna would necessarily meet the limitations “fully disposed in the water of the secondary settling tank”.
In addition to the effluent collection compartment 16 (“an outlet chamber”) of Bogusch, Hanna teaches that the effluent from the secondary clarifier (which contains the tube settling media of Bogusch) passes to primary and secondary filters 09 and 10 (see Fig. 11 and Paragraph [0073] of Hanna), which could also be considered as “outlet chamber(s)”.
With respect to claim 2, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch teaches that the outlet chamber (primary filter 09 and secondary filter 10 of Hanna) have at least one outlet port (see Hanna; Fig. 11; Paragraph [0073], wherein the water exits secondary filter 10 for disinfection unit 11).
With respect to claim 3, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch teaches that the first composition is prepared by mixing the first soluble salt of a group IIA metal with the water first, and then adding the first polymer thereto (see Hanna: Paragraph [0051]).
With respect to claims 7-9, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch teaches passing the water through a plurality of at least one reactor, wherein the plurality of the at least one reactors are arranged in series and/or parallel (see Hanna: Paragraphs [0015, 0062]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view of Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025), and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Baba et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0219126), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, “Bogusch”, and “Baba”.
With respect to claims 4-6, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch does not specifically teach addition of a second composition as claimed in the primary settling tank.
Baba teaches intermittent addition of a coagulating composition, including addition within a sedimentation tank (Paragraph [0040]), comprising multiple additions of the same composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the coagulant composition to the primary clarifier of Hanna as part of an intermittent coagulant dosing method as taught Baba (wherein the “second” composition is the same as the first composition) in order to optimize coagulant dosing obtain maximum setting and avoiding overdosing and excess sludge (see Baba: Paragraph [0040]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view of Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025), and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wett et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0081222), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, “Bogusch”, and “Wett”.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Hanna teaches circulating water taken from the primary settling tank with a pump and reintroducing it back into the primary settler/clarifier (see Paragraph [0073]; Fig. 11), but does not specifically teach an aeration manifold.
Wett teaches an aeration grid with bubble diffuser (“aeration manifold”) within a clarifier (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the aeration grid with bubble diffuser (“aeration manifold”) of Wett to the primary clarifier of Hanna because Wett teaches that aeration/oxidation feature of the disclosed clarifier allows for degradation of organic matter in sewage and its removal using reduced energy and compact infrastructure (Paragraph [0025]); the Examiner notes that Hanna is also directed to treatment of sewage/municipal wastewater (Abstract), and therefore would also be expected to share the same contaminants as the sewage of Wett.
Claims 12, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view of Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025) and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, and “Bogusch”.
With respect to claim 12, Hanna teaches a system for clarifying water (Abstract; Paragraphs [0020, 0070]; Fig. 11), the system comprising:
a) at least one reactor comprising at least one inlet and outlet and containing a first composition through which water flows (“configured for contacting the water with a first composition”) (Paragraphs [0020-0022, 0024, 0048-0052, 0059, 0070]), wherein the first composition comprises: i) a first polymer in a proportion of approximately 10% to 70% by weight (discrete range within “up to 70% by weight”) (Paragraph [0048]), il) an alkaline earth metal soluble salt (“a first soluble salt of a group IIA metal”) in a proportion of approximately 0.5 to 35% by weight (discrete range within “0.5% to 50% by weight”) (Paragraph [0048]), and iii) water, in a proportion to make up the balance of 100% weight (Paragraph [0048;
b) a primary clarifier configured to receive water from the reactor (“settling tank operatively coupled to the outlet of the at least one reactor”) and having an outlet for solids removal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0070]);
c) a secondary clarifier (“settling tank”) having an outlet for solids removal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0023-0025, 0070, 0071, 0073]);
and primary filter 09, secondary filter 10, and sludge dewatering tank 07A (see Paragraph [0073]; Fig. 11), each of which receive either clarified water or sludge from the second clarifier (“settling tank”), and are considered to meet the limitation “outlet chamber”.
Hanna does not specifically teach d) a weir as recited.
Simoneau teaches passing water over a weir 45 on the side of a clarifier tank, wherein the weir forms a boundary between a first solids separation zone 2 and a second solids separation zone 4 (Fig. 1A; Paragraphs [0038-0042]), wherein zones 2 and 4 of Simoneau are tanks, effectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the weir of Simoneau to the primary clarifier tank of Hanna because Hanna teaches passing water from a clarifier as discussed above, and because Simoneau teaches that decantation of water over the weir allows for first settling coarse solids in first solids separation zone 2 followed by settling and separation of fine solids in second solids separation zone 4 (Paragraphs [0038, 0041, 0042]; Fig. 1A).
Hanna does not specifically teach e) a tubular settling media as recited.
Bogusch teaches passing water in a clarifier up through a tube settling media (see tubular passages 12 in Fig. 1) onto a trough (see Column 4, lines 19, wherein the tube media fully disposed in water as water flows up towards the trough) and then flowing the water into an effluent collection compartment 16 (“an outlet chamber”), wherein the tube settling media comprises a plurality of sloped tubular passages (“channels”) disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1; Column 3, line 58 through Column 4, line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the tube settling media comprising passages 12 of Bogusch to the secondary clarifier of Hanna because Hanna teaches that the solids are settling in the secondary clarifier, and Bogusch teaches that the installation of tube settling media/tubular passages 12 into conventional clarifiers increases treatment capacity while maintaining an acceptable level of effluent quality with increased suspended solids removal (Column 4, lines 28-34). The Examiner submits that installation of the tube settling media of Bogush into the secondary clarifier of Hanna would also necessarily meet the limitations “fully disposed in the water of the secondary settling tank”.
In addition to the effluent collection compartment 16 (“an outlet chamber”) of Bogusch, Hanna teaches that the effluent from the secondary clarifier (which contains the tube settling media of Bogusch) passes to primary and secondary filters 09 and 10 (see Fig. 11 and Paragraph [0073] of Hanna), which could also be considered as “outlet chamber(s)”.
With respect to claim 13, Hanna in view of Simoneau, and Bogusch teaches that the first composition is prepared by mixing the first soluble salt of a group IIA metal with the water first, and then adding the first polymer thereto (see Hanna: Paragraph [0051]).
With respect to claims 18-20, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch teaches passing the water through a plurality of the at least one reactor, wherein the plurality of the at least one reactors are arranged in series and/or parallel (see Hanna: Paragraphs [0015, 0062]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025) and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Wett et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0081222), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, “Bogusch”, and “Wett”.
With respect to claim 14, Hanna teaches circulating water taken from the primary settling tank with a pump and reintroducing it back into the primary settler/clarifier (see Paragraph [0073]; Fig. 11), but does not specifically teach an aeration manifold.
Wett teaches an aeration grid with bubble diffuser (“aeration manifold”) within a clarifier (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the aeration grid with bubble diffuser (“aeration manifold”) of Wett to the primary clarifier of Hanna because Wett teaches that aeration/oxidation feature of the disclosed clarifier allows for degradation of organic matter in sewage and its removal using reduced energy and compact infrastructure (Paragraph [0025]); the Examiner notes that Hanna is also directed to treatment of sewage/municipal wastewater (Abstract), and therefore would also be expected to share the same contaminants as the sewage of Wett.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0292342) in view of Simoneau et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0291025) and Bogusch et al. (U.S. Patent # 4783255) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Baba et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0219126), hereinafter “Hanna”, “Simoneau”, “Bogusch”, and “Baba”.
With respect to claims 15-17, Hanna in view of Simoneau and Bogusch do not specifically teach addition of a second composition as claimed in the primary settling tank.
Baba teaches intermittent addition of a coagulating composition, including addition within a sedimentation tank (Paragraph [0040]), comprising multiple additions of the same composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the coagulant composition to the primary clarifier of Hanna as part of an intermittent coagulant dosing method as taught Baba (wherein the “second” composition is the same as the first composition) in order to optimize coagulant dosing obtain maximum setting and avoiding overdosing and excess sludge (see Baba: Paragraph [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bob Ramdhanie 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 11 September 2026
Prosecution Insights