DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-6 and 8-30 are pending.
Claims 1 and 16 are amended.
Claim 7 is canceled.
This Action is Made Final.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of Fraser and Ali does not teach a concentration of the AGS granules in the membrane bio-reactor is substantially equivalent to the concentration of the AGS granules flowing through the AGS reactor. With respect to the system clams (claim 1) this argument is not persuasive because the concentrations of AGS granules is a method limitation dependent on the operation of the system, not a structural limitation of the system. Method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same method. In the instant case as the flow through the AGS reactor can be changed the concentration can be changed.
The applicant argues that Ali does not teach this limitation because the effluent discharged from the AGS tank does not include a significant amount of the granular sludge. This argument is not persuasive with respect to the method claims because the claims do not require that the concentration in the membrane bio-reactor be substantially equivalent to the concentration within the AGS reactor. The claims states that the concentration is equivalent to the concentration flowing “through the AGS reactor”. As the influent into the membrane bio-reactor is the flow that flows out of the AGS reactor the concentration is equivalent to the concentration flowing through the AGS reactor.
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 1-6 and 8-30 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. Claims 1 and 16 state “a concentration of the AGS granules in the membrane bio-reactor is substantially equivalent to a concentration of the AGS granules flowing through the AGS reactor”. There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure.
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 1-6 and 8-30 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16:
The claims state “a concentration of the AGS granules in the membrane bio-reactor is substantially equivalent to a concentration of the AGS granules flowing through the AGS reactor”. This limitations renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what “the concentration flowing through the AGS reactor” is limited to. For example it is not clear if the concentration “flowing through” is referring to an average concentration within the different zones of the reactor, the concentration exiting the reactor, or something else. The AGS reactor as claimed contains multiple zones, therefore one skilled in the art would presume that the concentrations within the AGS reactor changes as the granules flow through the reactor.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which has been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 16-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (CA 3074480 ) in view of Ali et al (WO 2021/104944).
Regarding Claim 1:
Fraser teaches the wastewater treatment system, comprising: a flow through activated granular sludge (AGS) reactor (ballasted reactor when ballast is activated sludge granules) (see para. 0015, 0008), comprising: a first adsorption zone (first zone) that receives a wastewater input and AGS granules (heavy solid effluent is recycled into basin, therefore the granules are returned) (see para. 0019, 0061, fig. 1); a first unaerated zone, wherein the first unaerated zone is downstream of the first adsorption zone, wherein the first unaerated zone is under anaerobic, anoxic, or both anaerobic and anoxic conditions (second zone under anoxic conditions); a first aerated zone (third zone), wherein the first aerated zone is downstream of the first unaerated zone, wherein the first aerated zone is under aerobic conditions; a second unaerated zone (fourth zone), wherein the second unaerated zone is downstream of the first aerated zone, wherein the second unaerated zone is under anaerobic, anoxic, or both anaerobic and anoxic conditions; and a second aerated zone (fifth zone to re-aerate), wherein the second aerated zone is downstream of the second unaerated zone, wherein the flow through AGS reactor produces and discharges an AGS mixed liquor (see para. 0019, fig. 2); and a membrane bio-reactor unit (barrier separation unit when barrier separation unit is an MBR) (see para. 0012, 0041) downstream of the flow through AGS reactor that receives the AGS mixed liquor discharged from the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the membrane bio-reactor unit filters the AGS mixed liquor by separating the AGS granules from the AGS mixed liquor and producing a clarified permeate passing through the one or more membranes (clarified effluent is further cleaned to remove solids) (see para. 0005).
Fraser does not explicitly teach the membrane bio- reactor unit comprising one or more immersed membranes within a membrane tank.
Ali teaches the membrane bio-reactor unit (GDM) downstream of the flow through AGS reactor that receives the AGS mixed liquor (overflow) discharged from the flow through AGS reactor (see pg. 5 lines 7-10), the membrane bio- reactor unit comprising one or more immersed membranes within a membrane tank (GDM tank 120) (see pg. 9 lines 10-16, fig. 1), wherein the one or more immersed membranes are immersed within the AGS mixed liquor within the membrane tank (see fig. 1), wherein a concentration of the AGS granules in the membrane bio-reactor is substantially equivalent to a concentration of the AGS granules flowing through the AGS reactor (the concentrations of AGS granules is a method limitation dependent on the operation of the system, not a structural limitation of the system. Method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same method. In the instant case as the flow through the AGS reactor can be changed the concentration can be changed), and wherein the membrane bio-reactor unit filters the AGS mixed liquor by separating the AGS granules from the AGS mixed liquor and producing a clarified permeate (treated effluent 170) passing through the one or more immersed membranes (see fig. 1).
Fraser and Ali are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified MBR of Fraser with the immersed (submerged) membrane bioreactor of Ali because it is the simple substitution of one membrane bioreactor type with another membrane bioreactor tank, obviously resulting in the separation of solids and clarified 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 Claim 2:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1, wherein the AGS granules are introduced to the wastewater in the first adsorption zone (return line to reactor) (see Fraser fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1, further comprising at least one mixing device (mixing device 90) within at least one of the unaerated zones of the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the at least one mixing device can be turned on or off (see Fraser para. 0057, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1, further comprising at least one aeration device (oxygen sources) within at least one of the aerated zones of the flow through AGS reactor (see Fraser fig. 2, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 5:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1, wherein a ballast material is introduced to the wastewater in the first adsorption zone (added to the influent) (see Fraser para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 6:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 5, wherein the AGS granules comprise the ballast material (see Fraser para. 0050).
Regarding Claim 8:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 7, wherein separated granules and/or ballast material (heavy solids) are reintroduced in the first adsorption zone of the flow through AGS reactor (see Fraser para. 0061, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1,further comprising an excess flow unit, wherein the excess flow unit (high rate solids removal zone) is downstream of the flow through AGS reactor and separate from the membrane bio-reactor unit, and wherein a portion of the wastewater flows to the excess flow unit (see Fraser para. 0061, fig. 2). It is noted that the claims do not require the excess flow unit to be in parallel to the membrane bio-reactor only “separate”. As the high rate solid removal unit is a distinct zone from the membrane bio-reactor, they are “separate”.
Regarding Claim 10:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1,further comprising two or more flow through AGS reactors operating in parallel (see Fraser para. 0063, fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1,wherein the flow through AGS reactor is a multi-pass flow through reactor (solid effluent is returned, therefore it passed though the reactor multiple times). The term “multi-pass” is not defined by the specification, therefore it is interpreted as being open to any recirculating flow.
Regarding Claim 12:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1, wherein the membrane bio-reactor unit comprises an aeration system (second air blower 109B) (see Ali pg. 19 lines 14-15) fig. 1, para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 13:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1.
Fraser does not explicitly teach two or more membrane bio-reactor units operating in parallel. Fraser further teaches two or more high rate removal units can be discharged to further downstream processes (see Fraser para. 0063). Therefore it would have been obvious to include two or more parallel membrane bio-reactor units when two or more high rate removal units are used because it is a simple duplication of parts, obviously resulting in an increase in the capacity for the system, with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16:
Fraser teaches the method of treating wastewater in a wastewater treatment system comprising: treating the wastewater in a flow through activated granular sludge (AGS) reactor (ballasted reactor when ballast is activated sludge granules) (see para. 0015, 0008), comprising:(a) introducing the wastewater and AGS granules to an adsorption zone of the flow through AGS reactor (added to the influent) (see Fraser para. 0059); (b) subsequent to step (a), distributing the wastewater to a first unaerated zone of the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the first unaerated zone is downstream of the adsorption zone, wherein the first unaerated zone is under anaerobic, anoxic, or both anaerobic and anoxic conditions; (c) subsequent to step (b), distributing the wastewater to a first aerated zone of the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the first aerated zone is downstream of the first unaerated zone, wherein the first aerated zone is under aerobic conditions; (d) subsequent to step (c), distributing the wastewater to a second unaerated zone of the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the second unaerated zone is downstream of the first aerated zone, wherein the second unaerated zone is under anaerobic, anoxic, or both anaerobic and anoxic conditions; and (e) subsequent to step (d), distributing the wastewater to a second aerated zone of the flow through AGS reactor, wherein the second aerated zone is downstream of the second unaerated zone, wherein the second aerated zone is under aerated conditions (see para. 0019, fig. 2); (f) outputting from the flow through AGS reactor an AGS mixed liquor (ballasted mixed liquor effluent) (see para. 0008); and treating the AGS mixed liquor in a membrane bio-reactor unit (barrier separation unit when barrier separation unit is an MBR) (see para. 0012, 0041), comprising: (a1) distributing the AGS mixed liquor to the membrane bio-reactor unit (see para. 0012), and (b1) subsequent to step (a1), filtering the AGS mixed liquor in the membrane bio-reactor unit to produce a clarified permeate.
Fraser does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane bio-reactor unit comprises one or more immersed membranes within a membrane tank.
Ali teaches a membrane bio-reactor unit comprises one or more immersed membranes within a membrane tank, wherein the one or more immersed membranes are immersed within the AGS mixed liquor within the membrane tank (GDM tank 120) (see pg. 9 lines 10-16, fig. 1), wherein a concentration of the AGS granules in the membrane bio-reactor is substantially equivalent to a concentration of the AGS granules flowing through the AGS reactor (the influent into the membrane bio-reactor is the flow that flows out of the AGS reactor, therefore the concentration is equivalent to the concentration flowing through the AGS reactor) and filtering the AGS mixed liquor in the membrane bio-reactor unit by separating the AGS granules from the AGS mixed liquor and producing to produce a clarified permeate (treated effluent) passing through the one or more immersed membranes (see fig. 1).
Fraser and Ali are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified MBR of Fraser with the immersed (submerged) membrane bioreactor of Ali because it is the simple substitution of one membrane bioreactor type with another membrane bioreactor tank, obviously resulting in the separation of solids and clarified 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 Claim 17:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the AGS granules are introduced to the wastewater in the adsorption zone (added to the influent) (see Fraser para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 18:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising mixing (has a mixing device) the wastewater in the unaerated zones of the flow through AGS reactor (see Fraser para. 0057, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising aerating the aerated zones of the flow through reactor (see Fraser fig. 2, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 20:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising introducing a ballast material to the wastewater in the adsorption zone (added to the influent) (see Fraser para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 21:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the AGS granules comprises the ballast material (see Fraser para. 0050).
Regarding Claim 22:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising separating the AGS granules and/or a ballast material from the AGS mixed liquor (high rate solids removal zone 50) (see para. 0061, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising reintroducing the AGS granules and/or ballast material (heavy solids) to the adsorption zone of the flow through AGS reactor (see Fraser para. 0061, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 24:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising distributing a portion of the wastewater to an excess flow unit (high rate solids removal) (see Fraser para. 0061, fig. 2). It is noted that the claims do not require the excess flow unit to be in parallel to the membrane bio-reactor. As the high rate solid removal unit is a distinct zone from the membrane bio-reactor, it is considered to be an excess flow unit.
Regarding Claim 25:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the wastewater treatment system comprises two or more flow through AGS reactors operating in parallel, wherein each of the flow through AGS reactors treats the wastewater pursuant to steps (a)-(e) of claim 16 to generate AGS mixed liquor (see Fraser para. 0063, fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 26:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the flow through AGS reactor is a multi-pass AGS flow through reactor (solid effluent is returned, therefore it passed though the reactor multiple times). The term “multi-pass” is not defined by the specification, therefore it is interpreted as being open to any recirculating flow.
Regarding Claim 27:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising aerating the AGS mixed liquor in the membrane bio-reactor unit (second air blower 109B) (see Ali pg. 19 lines 14-15) fig. 1, para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 28:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16.
Fraser does not explicitly teach two or more membrane bio-reactor units operating in parallel. Fraser further teaches two or more high rate removal units can be discharged to further downstream processes (see Fraser para. 0063). Therefore it would have been obvious to include two or more parallel membrane bio-reactor units when two or more high rate removal units are used because it is a simple duplication of parts, obviously resulting in an increase in the capacity for the system, with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (CA 3074480 ) in view of Ali et al (WO 2020/104944) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Wett et al (US 2015/0376043).
Regarding Claim 14:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 1.
Fraser does not teach the system further comprising at least one return activated sludge selector unit downstream of the membrane bio-reactor unit, wherein the at least one return activated sludge selector unit is adapted to separate the AGS granules and/or a ballast material from a discharge of the membrane bio-reactor unit.
Wett teaches a return activated sludge selector unit (selector) downstream of a separate separation unit (see fig. 4, 0079), wherein the at least one return activated sludge selector unit is adapted to separate the AGS granules and/or ballast material from a discharge of the membrane bio-reactor unit (see fig. 4, para. 0079, 0078). Wett further teaches that the selector can be placed upstream or downstream of the other separation unit (see figs. 3 and 4, para. 0078 and 0079).
Fraser, and Wett are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the return activated sludge selector unit of Wett downstream of the membrane bio-reactor of Fraser because gravimetric separation improves the recycling of phosphorous removing granules (see Wett para. 0078).
Regarding Claim 15:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment system of claim 14, wherein separated granules and/or ballast material from the at least one return activated sludge selector unit is reintroduced to the flow through AGS reactor (see Wett, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 29:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16.
Fraser does not teach the method further comprising subjecting an output of the membrane bio-reactor unit to a return activated sludge separation process to recover AGS granules and/or a ballast material.
Wett teaches a return activated sludge selector unit (selector) downstream of a separate separation unit (see fig. 4, 0079), wherein the at least one return activated sludge selector unit is adapted to separate the AGS granules and/or ballast material from a discharge of the membrane bio-reactor unit (see fig. 4, para. 0079, 0078). Wett further teaches that the selector can be placed upstream or downstream of the other separation unit (see figs. 3 and 4, para. 0078 and 0079).
Fraser, and Wett are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to subject the output of the membrane bioreactor of Fraser to the return activated sludge selector unit of Wett because gravimetric separation improves the recycling of phosphorous removing granules (see Wett para. 0078).
Regarding Claim 30:
Fraser, as modified, teaches the method of claim 29, further comprising introducing the AGS granules and/or ballast material that were recovered in the return activated sludge separation process to the flow through AGS reactor (see Wett, fig. 4).
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.
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 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights