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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 21MAY2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections and drawings objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19FEB2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 21MAY2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection, both CHITTENDEN and KOLODJI teach an oxygen-containing gas for treating wastewater. CHITTENDEN teaches using air in the form of microbubbles (C2/L17-19), while KOLODJI teaches a membrane that provides oxygen-enriched air. KOLODJI teaches oxygen-enriched air provides distinct advantages such as improving treatment capacity. Note that power consumption is just one noted advantage (see also KOLODJI C2/L1-5). Of course increasing the oxygen concentration will increase the efficiency of wastewater treatment, whether for aeration (improved bacteria digestion) or oxidation (greater chemical treatment). Thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for a membrane that provides oxygen-enriched air to impart the known advantages to the system of CHITTENDEN as the primary reference.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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) 1-2,4-6,8-14,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144).
Regarding claim 1, CHITTENDEN teaches a flotation apparatus (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #4);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #8);
an oxygen enrichment system comprised of:
an intake (Fig. 1 #60), and
a system for forming a fluid containing air (e.g. Fig. 1 #57,60);
a fluid feed region (Fig. 1 #10; C2/L23-26,47-50; C4/L18-27) capable of producing microbubbles; and
a collection device (Fig. 1 #24).
CHITTENDEN does not teach an oxygen enriching membrane. However, KOLODJI teaches a wastewater treatment apparatus (title, Figs.) that provides oxygen enriched air to a wastewater treatment aeration system including a membrane (abstract) that increases the amount of oxygen as permeate and decreases the amount of nitrogen as retentate (C3/L54-59,C4/L1-5).
KOLODJI teaches enriched air can improve wastewater treatment capacity and/or reduce power consumption (C1/L61-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the system of CHITTENDEN with an oxygen enriching membrane of KOLODJI in order to improve wastewater treatment. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Regarding claim 2, KOLODJI teaches an air compressor (Fig. 1 #12) that compresses ambient air prior to being fed to the oxygen enrichment system, which is required to process air through the membrane (C3/L38-40).
Regarding claim 4, KOLODJI teaches the oxygen enrichment system includes an outlet for nitrogen removal (Fig. 1 #3; C4/L1-5).
Regarding claim 5, KOLODJI teaches the oxygen enriching membrane comprises hollow fiber membranes (C3/L54-59).
Regarding claims 6,9,16-17, the claim sets forth a method and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 8, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid feed region includes a microbubble releasing mechanism (e.g. valve, Fig. 1 #75) ahead of a fluid inlet into the treatment region.
Regarding claim 10, CHITTENDEN teaches the collection device is comprised of a movable paddle (Fig. 1 #24).
Regarding claim 11, CHITTENDEN teaches a waste collection compartment separate from the treatment region (Fig. 1 #36).
Regarding claim 12, CHITTENDEN teaches the apparatus further includes a treated fluid compartment (Fig. 1 #52).
Regarding claim 13, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid containing oxygen enriched air is comprised of treated fluid from the treated fluid compartment (e.g. a recycle loop; Fig. 1 #55).
Regarding claim 14, CHITTENDEN teaches a pump that is capable of providing sheer to oxygenated water (e.g. Fig. 1 #57 providing a pressure force on recycled water; C3/L32-33).
Regarding claim 18, CHITTENDEN teaches a flotation apparatus (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #4);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #8);
an oxygen enrichment system comprised of:
an intake (upstream air intake feeding to pressurized air intake, Fig. 1 #60), and
a system for forming a waste fluid containing air (e.g. air injection, Fig. 1 #60, which is downstream fluid pump #57; C2/L13-26);
a fluid feed region (Fig. 1 #10) capable of releasing microbubbles (C2/L17-19) and,
a collection device (Fig. 1 #24).
CHITTENDEN does not teach an oxygen enriching membrane. However, KOLODJI teaches a wastewater treatment apparatus (title, Figs.) that provides oxygen enriched air to a wastewater treatment aeration system including a membrane (abstract) that increases the amount of oxygen as permeate and decreases the amount of nitrogen as retentate (C3/L54-59,C4/L1-5).
KOLODJI teaches enriched air can improve wastewater treatment capacity and/or reduce power consumption (C1/L61-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the system of CHITTENDEN with an oxygen enriching membrane of KOLODJI in order to e.g. improve wastewater treatment capacity. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and GIFFORD (US 20180257961).
Regarding claim 3, CHITTENDEN’s modified device does not teach the oxygen enrichment system further includes an air pretreatment device. However, GIFFORD teaches e.g. wastewater treatment (par. [0138] on P10) including a source of an oxidizing agent fluidly connectable to a source of an aqueous solution (abstract), wherein the source of an oxidizing agent includes a gas separation system (par. [0015]) including a membrane separator module (par. [0172]) to selectively separate oxygen from air. The system further includes an air pretreatment device comprising a compressor, a filter, and a heater (par. [0175]) such that the enriched oxidizing agent is mixed with the aqueous solution forming microbubbles (par. [0126]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CHITTENDEN’s modified system with an oxygen enriching pretreatment device of GIFFORD in order to e.g. improve oxygen enrichment and microbubble formation (par. [0126]). The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and MEYER (US 6344147).
Regarding claim 7, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid feed region includes a fluid inlet (Fig. 3 #76) connected to a microbubble dispersion device with openings (Fig. 3 #16,18).
CHITTENDEN does not teach a fluid inlet located at a base of the treatment region. However, MEYER teaches a flotation plant (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #5);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #2);
an air intake (not shown; apparent that an air intake is necessary for providing air bubbles);
a collection device (Fig. 1 #9), and
a fluid feed region (tank bottom comprising air supply means, Fig. 1 #6; C2/L18-21) capable of producing microbubbles (C2/L35-38);
wherein the fluid feed region includes a fluid inlet (e.g. Fig. 4 #21) connected to a microbubble dispersion device (Fig. 4 #17) with openings (Fig. 4 #22) located at a base of the treatment region (Fig. 1).
MEYER teaches plate diffusers with openings provides substantially better results as compared to conventional air and pressure release flotations by e.g. avoiding coalescing of air bubbles (C2/L39-43,56-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHITTENDEN’s modified system with an inlet connected to a microbubble dispersion device with openings located at a base of the treatment region as taught by MEYER in order to improve microbubble flotation. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and FRISKY (US 20110266203).
Regarding claim 15, CHITTENDEN does not teach the apparatus is mobile and includes wheels. However, FRISKY teaches an apparatus for electrocoagulation (title, Figs.) including a diffused air flotation cell (Fig. 2 #130) and the apparatus is mobile and includes wheels (Figs. 1-2 #15) for the purpose of transporting a water treatment system in a decentralized water treatment plant, where water treatment can be moved from site to site (par. [0002,0004,0014]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHITTENDEN’s modified system to be mobile as taught by FRISKY in order to treat water from site to site. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights