DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16-19, and 21 are amended.
Claim 25 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 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Sorensen with Furuya because Sorensen is directed to a biofilm method with improved phosphorous removal and Furuya is directed to an activated sludge process with an overall focus of nitrogen removal. This argument is not persuasive because Furuya teaches an embodiment of the invention in which the reactor (activated sludge reactor) is replaced with a biofilm reactor (see para. 0087) and that the biofilms are present on moving carriers (see para. 0086-0087). As Furuya teaches that the method is applicable to biofilm processes it would have been obvious to modify the biofilm process of Sorensen. Further, as the applicant acknowledges, Furuya teaches phosphorus removal is occurring in the method (see Furuya para. 0068) and Sorensen teaches nitrogen reduction in addition to phosphorous (see Sorensen para. 0024), therefore one skilled in the art would have found the teachings of Furuya applicable to the method of Sorensen.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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 5, 19, and 21 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 Claim 5:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “between 1% and 100%”, and the claim also recites “between 30% and 75 %” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 19:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “0.5-5 mg/l”, and the claim also recites “1-2 mg/l” and “1.5 mg/l” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 21:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “less than 0.5 mg/l”, and the claim also recites “less than 0.2 mg/l” and “less than 0.1 mg/l which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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) 1-15 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al (US 2017/0158534) in view of Furuya et al (US 2014/0374346).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sorensen teaches the method for enhanced biological phosphorus removal from water by a biofilm, said method comprising:(i) an anaerobic step in which said biofilm is subjected to anaerobic conditions; (ii) an aerated step in which said biofilm is subjected to aerated conditions by supplying oxygen to the water (see para. 0016).
Sorensen does not teach (iii) detecting the level of nitrite and/or nitrate in the water in or after aerated step (ii); wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is dependent on the level of nitrite and/or nitrate detected or wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is decreased in response to the detection of an increased, or increasing, level of nitrite and/or nitrate and wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is increased in response to the detection of a decreased, or decreasing, level of nitrite and/or nitrate. Sorensen further teaches that the process is intended for biological removal of nitrogen (see para. 0019).
Furuya teaches detecting the level of nitrite and/or nitrate in the water in or after an aerated step; wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step is dependent on the level of nitrite and/or nitrate detected (see para. 0060, 0061) and, wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is decreased in response to the detection of an increased (exceeds set range), or increasing, level of nitrite, (see Furuya para. 0058, 0061); and wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is increased in response to the detection of a decreased (below set range), or decreasing, level of nitrite and/or nitrate (see Furuya para. 0058, 0060).
Sorensen and Furuya are analogous inventions in the art of biological nitrogen removal. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the steps of detecting the level of nitrite and/or nitrate in the water in or after an aerated step; wherein the amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step is dependent on the level of nitrite and/or nitrate detected, as disclosed by Furuya, to the aerated step of Sorensen because it insures that amount of oxygen supplied is appropriate and can improve the nitrogen removal rates (See Furuya para. 0123).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said biofilm is present on free flowing (freely moving) biofilm carriers (see Sorensen para. 0035).
Regarding Claim 3:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said water is wastewater (see Sorensen, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of any one of claim 1, wherein said method is performed in a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) (see Sorensen, para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 5:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein said biofilm is present on biofilm carriers and wherein the filling ratio of biofilm carriers is between 1% and 100%, or between 30 % to 75 %, of the wet volume of the reactor (see Sorensen para. 0042).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said method is a continuous method (see Sorensen para. 0032).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said anaerobic step (i) is carried out in an anaerobic zone of a reactor and said aerated step (ii) is carried out in an aerated zone of a reactor (see Sorensen para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 8:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said anaerobic zone and/or said aerated zone is sub-divided into a plurality of sub-chambers (separated into several consecutive chambers) (see Sorensen para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 9:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biofilm is present on biofilm carriers and at the end of the aerated step said biofilm carriers are transferred from the aerated chamber to the anaerobic chamber without significant transfer of water (see Sorensen para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 9, wherein said transfer is performed by a mechanical device (see Sorensen para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 11:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said oxygen is supplied in the form of air (see Sorensen para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 12:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the level of nitrite (N02) is detected (see Furuya para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 13:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the level of nitrate (NO3) is detected (see Furuya para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 14:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the level of nitrite (NO2) and nitrate (NO3) is detected (see Furuya para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 15:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the level of nitrite and/or nitrate is detected by one or more in-line sensors (nitrate meter 7) (see Furuya para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 18:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein said increased or increasing or decreased or decreasing level of nitrite and/or nitrate is an increase or decrease relative to a nitrite and/or nitrate setpoint level (set target range) (see Furuya para. 0058-0061).
Regarding Claim 19:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 18, wherein said setpoint level of nitrite and/or nitrate is less than 5 mg/l (see Furuya para. 0059). Given that the prior art range of less than 5 mg/l fully encompasses the claimed range or 0.5 to 5mg/l a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to have a setpoint within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 20:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in aerated step (ii) there is a continuous supply of oxygen to the water (aeration can be performed continuously) (see Furuya para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 21:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said method achieves biological phosphorus removal from water such that there is a concentration of PO4-P of less than 0.5 mg/1 (0.20 mg/l) (see Sorensen para. 0052), or less than 0.2 mg/i or less than 0.1 mg/L.
Regarding Claim 22:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said method further comprises the removal of nitrogen in the form of ammonium from said water (see Sorensen para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 23:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 22, wherein said removal of nitrogen is by simultaneous nitrification-denitrification (SND) by microorganisms in the biofilm (see Sorensen para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 24:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches water treatment system (biological reactor) (see Sorensen para. 0024) configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al (US 2017/0158534) in view of Furuya et al (US 2014/0374346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemaire et al (US 2013/0256217).
Regarding Claim 16:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach said amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is decreased by decreasing a DO-setpoint.
Lemaire teaches an amount of oxygen supplied in an aerated step is decreased by decreasing a DO setpoint ( new value of oxygen intake) (see para. 0066-69).
Sorensen, as modified by Furuya, are analogous inventions in the art of operating MBBRs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to decrease the oxygen supplied in the aerated step of Lemaire (as modified by Furuya) by decreasing a DO setpoint, as disclosed by Lemaire because it limits oxygen consumption while ensuring a high level of elimination of ammonia (see Lemaire para. 0069) and it is desirable in Sorensen to remove ammonia (ammonium) (see para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 17:
Sorensen, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach said amount of oxygen supplied in aerated step (ii) is increased by increasing a DO-setpoint .
Lemaire teaches an amount of oxygen supplied in an aerated step is increased by increasing a DO setpoint ( new value of oxygen intake) (see para. 0066-69).
Sorensen, as modified by Furuya, are analogous inventions in the art of operating MBBRs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to increase the oxygen supplied in the aerated step of Lemaire (as modified by Furuya) by decreasing a DO setpoint, as disclosed by Lemaire because it limits oxygen consumption while ensuring a high level of elimination of ammonia (see Lemaire para. 0069) and it is desirable in Sorensen to remove ammonia (ammonium) (see para. 0026).
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 11/25/2025