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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 20 and 43-52 are currently pending
Claims 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15-19 and 21-42 are currently canceled
Claims 43-52 are new
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 20 are currently amended
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 20 and 43-52 are currently rejected
Claim Objections
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “said incubation period” and instead should state “said specified incubation period” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “said incubation period” and instead should state “said specified incubation period” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “said support matrix” and instead should state “said supporting matrix” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,189,732 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-2, 14 and 20 are broad and further disclosed by claims 1-4 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,189,732 B2.
Claims 1-3, 14 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6 and 12 of co-pending Application No. 18/324328 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-3, 14 and 20 are broad and further disclosed by claims 1, 5-6 and 12 of co-pending Application No. 18/324328.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 20 and 43-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. 2016/0318782 A1) (hereinafter “Park”) in view of WANG XINHUA et al. (CN 110697884 A) (hereinafter “Wang”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 1:
Park teaches a method (see FIGS. 1C and 15-16) (see paragraphs 2, 6, 18, 46-47, 49-54 and 73-74) (see claim 1) comprising the steps of:
placing in a vessel a mixture comprising a water-based reaction medium with at least one microalgae including filamentous cyanobacteria therein (see paragraphs 6, 14-15 and 47) (see claims 1 and 9-10), said water-based reaction medium comprising a nutrient material that is consumable by a live bacterium or by a live protozoan present in said water-based reaction medium (see paragraphs 6, 9-10 and 18) (see claims 1 and 4-5); and
incubating said mixture for a specified incubation period under at least intermittent illumination (see paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 52, 55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89) (see claims 1 and 7-8), wherein said filamentous cyanobacteria forms a supporting matrix (granular composition) that incorporates said live bacterium or said live protozoan into a biologically-active bioaggregate granule (see paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 60) (see claims 1 and 10-11), wherein said incubating produces a plurality of said biologically-active bioaggregate granules (see paragraphs 6, 16-18, 49, 52-55, 60 and 73-74) (see claims 1 and 10-13).
Although Park teaches placing in a vessel a mixture having a quantity of a water-based reaction medium and at least one microalgae including filamentous cyanobacteria, one may broadly interpret that Park does not explicitly teach a mixture having a specified concentration of suspended solids or sludge, as recited in amended, independent claim 1. Furthermore, Park does not explicitly teach incubating said mixture for a specified incubation period under at least intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux during periods of illumination while mixing said mixture under a specified shear stress, as recited in amended, independent claim 1.
Wang further teaches a wastewater treatment system and method including a mixture having a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration and comprising a water-based reaction medium and at least one microalgae (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47). Furthermore, Wang discloses incubating said mixture for a specified incubation period under at least intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux during periods of illumination while mixing said mixture under a specified shear stress (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches recovering at least a portion of said plurality of biologically-active bioaggregate granules from said incubated mixture (see Park Abstract) (see Park paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 52, 55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Wang further teaches said specified luminous flux as a photosynthetic photon flux density onto the mixture is from about 30 µmol m-2s-1 to about 1200 µmol m-2s-1 (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Wang further teaches said specified shear stress is from about 0.005 Newtons per square meter to about 0.075 Newtons per square meter (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Wang further teaches said specified concentration of said suspended solids or sludge is from about 30 milligrams of said suspended solids or said sludge per liter of said mixture to about 1,500 milligrams of said suspended solids or said sludge per liter of said mixture (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches comprising:
receiving an activated sludge (see Park paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 51-55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89) (see Park claim 1); and
diluting said activated sludge with water to a concentration (see Park paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 51-55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89) (see Park claim 1).
Wang further teaches diluting said activated sludge with water to a concentration of from about 30 milligrams of said activated sludge per liter of said water to about 1,500 milligrams of said activated sludge per liter of said water to provide said water-based reaction medium (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Wang further teaches said specified incubation period is no more than about 15 days (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Wang further teaches said specified incubation period is from about 3 days to about 12 days (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47 further discussing incubating for hours/days under multiple illumination intensities).
Park and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a wastewater treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the wastewater treatment system and method of Park to include a step of measuring/determining a specified suspended solids or sludge concentration, and a step of incubating for a specified incubation period under intermittent illumination with a specified luminous flux and shear stress, as taught by Wang, for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants from a wastewater fluid source (see Wang paragraphs 11-12, 22, 38-40 and 46-47).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said nutrient material is consumable by said at least one microalgae including filamentous cyanobacteria (see Park paragraphs 6, 9-10 and 18) (see Park claims 1 and 4-5).
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches the plurality of said biologically-active bioaggregate granules made according to the method of claim 1 (see Park paragraphs 6, 16-18, 49, 52-55, 60 and 73-74) (see Park claims 1 and 10-13).
Regarding Claim 43:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said water-based reaction medium comprises wastewater (see Park paragraphs 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, 18 and 47) (see claims 1, 4-5 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 44:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said water-based reaction medium comprises activated sludge (see Park paragraphs 6, 9-10, 14-15, 18 and 47-49) (see claims 1, 4-5 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 45:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said water-based reaction medium comprises microbial biomass containing one or more of: said at least one microalgae, bacteria, and protozoa (see Park paragraphs 6, 9-10, 14-15, 18 and 46-47) (see claims 1, 4-5 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 46:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said specified incubation period is from about 5 days to about 10 days (see Park paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 52, 55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89) (see Park claims 1 and 7-8) (see Park FIGS. 2A-2B, 3A-3C and 4A-4H further illustrating the incubation periods over multiple days and weeks/months).
Regarding Claim 47:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said specified incubation period is from about 6 days to about 8 days (see Park paragraphs 6, 12-13, 49, 52, 55, 58, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 89) (see Park claims 1 and 7-8) (see Park FIGS. 2A-2B, 3A-3C and 4A-4H further illustrating the incubation periods over multiple days and weeks/months).
Regarding Claim 48:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein Park further teaches said supporting matrix comprises an interwoven support structure of said filamentous cyanobacteria (see Park paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 60) (see Park claims 1 and 10-11).
Regarding Claim 49:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 48, wherein said biologically-active bioaggregate granule comprises an outer coating layer surrounding an inner region, said outer coating layer comprising said supporting matrix comprising the interwoven support structure of the filamentous cyanobacteria (see Park paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 60) (see Park claims 1 and 10-11).
Regarding Claim 50:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 49, wherein the inner region of said biologically-active bioaggregate granule includes at least a portion of said live bacterium or said live protozoan and a portion of said water-based reaction medium (see Park paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 60) (see Park claims 1 and 10-11).
Regarding Claim 51:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein said filamentous cyanobacteria is of the order Oscillatoriales and the genera Microcoleus, Phormidesmis, Oscillatoria, Letptolynghia, Plectonema, Tychonema, Pseudanabaena, or Geitlerinema (see Park paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 59-60) (see Park claims 1 and 10-11).
Regarding Claim 52:
The combination of Park in view of Wang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein said filamentous cyanobacteria comprises at least one motile filamentous cyanobacteria (see Park paragraphs 6, 15-16, 46-49, 53-55 and 60) (see Park claims 1 and 10-11).
Other References Considered
ELKACMI Reda et al. (WO 2020139067 A1) (hereinafter “Reda”) (see attached English description) teaches a reactor system for the treatment of liquid effluents.
Andrews et al. (U.S. 2018/0029902 A1) (hereinafter “Andrews”) teaches a vacuum air lift system and method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but focus on amended claim limitations and new claims, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous specification/abstract objection has been considered and is now withdrawn.
The previous claim objections have been considered and are now updated (see above).
The previous 112(b) claim rejection has been considered and is now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendment.
The previous double patenting rejections have been considered and are held in abeyance as requested by Applicant.
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 AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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 L. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights