DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-8 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 1:
The claims states “biologically treating…aqueous effluents to be treated in the at least two basins”. It is not clear if “aqueous effluents” is referring to the same “aqueous effluents” as in line 3 or different effluents. The phrase “to be treated” further renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “biologically treating” is an upstream process or if it is limiting the type of treatment in the at least two basins.
The term “preferably” in lines 12 and 13 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim states “transferring the deaerated aqueous effluents”, however claim 1 requires “recirculating at least a portion of the deaerated effluents”. It is therefore not clear if “transferring” is limited to a second portion of the deaerated effluents or if claim 2 does not contain all the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim refers to “at least one portion of the deaerated…”. There is already antecedent basis for this term within the claim. It is therefore not clear if this is the same portion or an additional portion.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim refers to “at least one portion of the deaerated…”. There is already antecedent basis for this term within the claim. It is therefore not clear if this is the same portion or an additional portion.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8:
The claims use the term “preferably” this term renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from indefitne claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (US 2008/0053897).
Regarding Claim 1:
Zhu teaches the method for treating aqueous effluents, comprising the following steps :a) simultaneously feeding aqueous effluents into at least two basins comprising at least one upstream basin and at least one intermediate basin in the flow direction of the aqueous effluents, in fluid connection and in series with one another; b) biologically treating, on a fluidised bed (fluidized beds are used) (see para. 0015), aqueous effluents to be treated in the at least two basins; c) transferring at least one portion of the biologically treated aqueous effluents from the intermediate basin to a deaerator; d) deaerating the biologically treated aqueous effluents in the deaerator; e) recirculating at least one portion of the deaerated aqueous effluents to at least the upstream basin and preferably the at least two basins (see annotated figure 2 below), further comprising an air injection step (see para. 0044) f), preferably exclusively in the at least one intermediate basin.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6:
Zhu teaches the treatment method according claim 1,wherein deaerating step d) comprises a step of decanting (a clarifier is used) the biologically treated effluents in order to separate a solid from a supernatant and wherein the step of recirculating the deaerated aqueous effluents is only carried out on at least one portion of the supernatant liquid (only the top portion is recirculated) (see fig. 2, annotated above).
Regarding Claim 8:
Zhu teaches the device for treating aqueous effluents, comprising: a) at least two basins comprising at least one upstream basin and one intermediate basin in the flow direction of the aqueous effluents, in fluid connection and in series with one another and intended for carrying out a biological treatment on a fluidised bed (See para. 0015); b) a deaerator (clarifier) suitable for deaerating aqueous effluent and in fluid connection with the intermediate basin; c) feeding means for aqueous effluents to be treated, connected to the upstream basin and to the intermediate basin; d) recirculation means suitable for ensuring recirculation of deaerated effluents from the deaerator to at least the upstream basin and preferably to the at least two basins (see fig. 2, annotated below); e) air injection means (see para. 0044) suitable for injecting air, preferably exclusively into the intermediate basin.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2019/0315643) in view of Zhu et al (US 2008/0053897).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches the method for treating aqueous effluents, comprising the following steps :a) simultaneously feeding (dividedly introducing) aqueous effluents into at least two basins (see para. 0014) comprising at least one upstream basin (aerobic tank) and at least one intermediate basin (first anoxic tank) in the flow direction of the aqueous effluents, in fluid connection and in series with one another (see para. 0013, fig. 2; b) biologically treating, aqueous effluents to be treated in the at least two basins (see para. 0013); c) transferring at least one portion of the biologically treated aqueous effluents from the intermediate basin to a deaerator(second anoxic tank) (see para. 0013); d) deaerating the biologically treated aqueous effluents in the deaerator (tank is anoxic, therefore some deaeration will occur); e) recirculating at least one portion of the deaerated aqueous effluents to at least the upstream basin (see fig. 2) and preferably the at least two basins, further comprising an air injection step (aeration intensity) (see para. 0034) f), preferably exclusively in the at least one intermediate basin.
Kim does not teach that the biologically treating is on a fluidised bed.
Zhu teaches biologically treating on a multiple fluidized beds (fluidized beds are used) (see para. 0015, figs. 5-7).
Kim and Zhu are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use fluidized beds, as disclosed by Zhu, in the basins of Kim because fluidized beds provide enhanced solid liquid interfaces and contact between gas and liquid (see Zhu para. 0004).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kim, as modified, teaches the treatment method according to claim 1, wherein a feed flow rate of aqueous effluents differs between the upstream basin and the intermediate basin (40-60% to the aerobic tank) (see Kim para. 0014). At all values other than 50% the feed flow rate differs.
Regarding Claim 4:
Kim, as modified, teaches the treatment method according to claim 1.
Kim does not teach wherein recirculation step e) is carried out to the at least two basins and a recirculation flow rate of at least one portion of the deaerated aqueous effluents differs between the upstream basin and the intermediate basin.
Zhu further teaches recirculating back to at least two basins (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a second recirculation line to the intermediate basin of Kim, as disclosed by Zhu, such that recirculation step is carrier out in the at least two basins because it is the simple addition of a known recirculation obviously resulting in additional anoxic treatment of the wastewater, with an expectation of success The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to have differing amounts of deaerated effluents between the upstream basin and the intermediate basin because it is desirable to maintain a set ratio of ammonia nitrogen and nitrite nitrogen in the downstream reactor (see Kim para. 0017) and the upstream basin and intermediate basis change the quantity of ammonia and nitrite (see Kim par. 0015 and 0016).
Regarding Claim 5:
Kim, as modified, teaches the treatment method according to claim 4, wherein the upstream basin receives a higher feed flow rate of aqueous effluents (40% to 60%) (when greater than 50% the upstream basin receives a higher feed flow rate) (see Kim para. 0014) and/or a higher recirculation flow rate of at least one portion of the deaerated aqueous effluents.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn (KR 100762919, English machine translation provided) in view of Zhu et al (US 2008/0053897).
Regarding Claim 1:
Youn teaches the method for treating aqueous effluents, comprising the following steps :a) simultaneously feeding aqueous effluents into at least two basins (raw water is distributed to the anaerobic tank, anoxic tank, and fixed quantity supplying tank) (see Abstract) comprising at least one upstream basin (anaerobic tank 200) and at least one intermediate basin (anoxic tank 300) in the flow direction of the aqueous effluents (see pg. 8, 5th paragraph), in fluid connection and in series with one another (see fig, 3) biologically treating, aqueous effluents to be treated in the at least two basins (see pg. 8, 5th paragraph); c) transferring at least one portion of the biologically treated aqueous effluents from the intermediate basin to a deaerator (continuous batch reaction tank) (see pg. 8, 5th paragraph); d) deaerating the biologically treated aqueous effluents in the deaerator (some deaeration will occur, the type of deaerator is not limited); e) recirculating at least one portion of the deaerated aqueous effluents to at least the upstream basin (sludge from sludge conveying pipe 111) (see pg. 13, 1st paragraph) and preferably the at least two basins, further comprising an air injection step (see pg. 16, 2nd paragraph from bottom) f), preferably exclusively in the at least one intermediate basin.
Youn does not teach that the biologically treating is on a fluidised bed.
Zhu teaches biologically treating on a multiple fluidized beds (fluidized beds are used) (see para. 0015, figs. 5-7).
Youn and Zhu are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use fluidized beds, as disclosed by Zhu, in the basins of Kim because fluidized beds provide enhanced solid liquid interfaces and contact between gas and liquid (see Zhu para. 0004).
Regarding Claim 2:
Youn, as modified, teaches the treatment method according to claim 1, further comprising a step g) of transferring the deaerated aqueous effluents to at least one downstream basin (fixed quantity supplying tank 400) (see Youn Abstract, fig, 3) and wherein the steps a) of feeding aqueous effluents and b) biological treatment are also carried out in the downstream basin (see Youn fig, 3).
Regarding Claim 7:
Youn, as modified, teaches the treatment method according to claim 1,wherein the steps a) of feeding aqueous effluents and b) of biological treatment are also carried out in at least two intermediate basins (anoxic tank and fixed quantity tank) (see Youn, Abstract, fig. 3) and preferably three intermediate basins or more.
Conclusion
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 9/12/2025