DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach that the “content of the culture tank is not higher than a minimum water temperatures of the organic wastewater in a year”. This argument is not persuasive because Huang teaches a culture tank temperature of 5°C (see Huang pg. 4, 3rd paragraph) and Sumino further teaches the organic wastewater (water to be treated) is 0 to 15°C (see Sumino pg. 3, 6th paragraph). Therefore the temperature of the content of the culture tank of Sumino, as modified by Huang overlaps the temperature range claimed in that if the minimum temperature of the water to be treated is between 5 and 15°C (within the prior art range of 0 to 15°C) the temperature of the culture tank is not higher than the minimum water temperature. There is no argument or evidence of unexpected results with respect to the temperature of the culture tank not being higher than a minimum water temperature of the organic wastewater in a year. Although the specification shows that treatment with a culture at a temperature less than the water temperature results in a higher diminution rate, this is related to the temperature at the time of treatment not based on a minimum temperature for the year. Further it is well known in the art that treating low temperature wastewater with sludge cultured at a low temperate has a reduced start up time (see Huang, Abstract).
The applicant argues that Huang does not refer to the minimum water temperature within a year and that the concept of water temperature in a year is not identified as a relevant parameter. Although the applicant is correct that the prior art does not refer to the yearly parameter, the same temperature ranges and differences are made obvious by the prior art. The means by which the temperature range is determined (minimum water temperature in a year) only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must teach the same temperatures. The claims do not require steps of measuring daily wastewater temperatures over the course of a year and adjusting the culture tank based on the measurements. Additionally there is no evidence of unexpected results with respect to “the temperature of the content of the culture tank is not higher than a minimum water temperature of the organic wastewater in a year, wherein the minimum water temperature in a year is not lower than 4°C and lower than 15°C”.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that there is a difference of at least 5°C between a maximum water temperature and a minimum water temperatures in a year and the minimum water temperature is not lower than 4°C and is lower than 15°C. This argument is not persuasive because Sumino teaches a temperature range of 0 to 15°C. Which over laps the claimed range. For example is the minimum water temperature is 4°C the difference is at least 11°C (given the range up to 15°C) disclosed by Sumino. Given that the prior art range overlaps the claimed range a prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use temperatures within the claimed range. It is further noted that the temperature of the organic wastewater does not appear to be a parameter that the applicant is controlling, but rather dependent on the weather where the wastewater is originating form and being treated. Additionally there does not appear to be any unexpected or significant results with respect to the temperature range of the organic wastewater.
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 and 3-11 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 claim states “the culture tank at a temperature that is (i) at least 6°C lower than a water temp of the organic wastewater… and (ii) not lower than -1°C and…wherein the temperature of the culture tank is not higher than a minimum water temperature of the organic wastewater…not lower than 4°C and lower than 15°C”. These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the actual lower limits for the culture tank and organic wastewater desired by the applicant are. For example if the organic wastewater is 4.5°C the culture tank would be required to be at least 6°C lower, which would be a temperature of at most -1.5°C, which is lower than the lower limit of -1°C.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite claim.
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, 3, 4, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino (WO 2014017429, English machine translation provided) in view of Huang et al (CN 106430528, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sumino teaches the method for treating organic wastewater with use of a device including (i) a reaction tank for treating organic wastewater with use of activated sludge and (ii) a culture tank (culture tank 20) provided separately from the reaction tank (nitrification tank 100) (see pg. 4, 5th paragraph, fig. 2), the method comprising the steps of:(A) culturing, in the culture tank, a microorganism contained in the activated sludge, while maintaining a temperature of a content of the culture tank at a temperature that is (ii) not lower than -1 °C and not higher than 10°C (0 °C or higher and 15°C or lower) (see pg. 3, 6th paragraph); and (B) introducing, into the reaction tank, the microorganism which has been subjected to the step (A) (see pg. 4, 5th paragraph, fig. 2) and treating the organic wastewater in the reaction tank (see pg. 5, Example 1).
Sumino does not explicitly teach the temperature of the culture tank is (i) at least 5°C lower than a water temperature of the organic wastewater at a start of culturing of the microorganism, or wherein the temperature of the content of the culture tank is not higher than a minimum water temperature of the organic wastewater in a year, wherein the minimum water temperature in a year is not lower than 4°C and lower than 15°C. Sumino further teaches that the minimum water temperature in a year (water to be treated) is not lower than 0°C and lower than 15°C (see Sumino pg. 3, 6th paragraph). Given that the prior art range of 0 to 15°C fully encompasses the claimed range of 4 to 15°C a prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a temperature within the claimed range. It is noted that as the minimum water temperature is within the claimed range it is inherently within the claimed range in a year.
Huang teaches a method of treating wastewater wherein the microorganism are cultured at 5°C (see pg. 4, 3rd paragraph).
Sumino and Huang are analogous inventions in the art of treating low temperature wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to maintain the culture tank of Sumino at 5°C , as disclosed by Huang because it is a temperature known to be effective for cold culturing microorganism and quick starting a biofilm reactor (see Huang, Abstract) and it is desirable in Sumino to start biofilm reactor in cold temperatures (see Sumino, Abstract). Further given that the temperature difference between the culture temperature and the wastewater temperature between -5 and 10°C (5°C culture temperature and 0-15°C wastewater) overlaps the claimed range of at least 6°C lower a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use have the culture temperature at least 6°C lower than the organic wastewater in the reactor (see MPEP 2144.05). Further given that a temperature of 5°C is not higher than a wastewater temperature of 11°C (a temperature of at least 6°C lower) it would be obvious to have the content of the culture tank not higher than a minimum water temperature in a year, because this limitation is inherently met by meeting the other claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 3:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein a time of culturing of the microorganism is longer than a doubling time of the microorganism (2 months) (see Sumino pg. 5, Example 1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the step (B) is a step of introducing the microorganism from the culture tank into the reaction tank as follows: (B-i) at a timing that precedes, by at least 1 times a sludge residence time (microorganism are leaked from the carrier, therefore they are introduced at a time less than they resentence time which is “several days to one month”) (see Sumino pg. 4, 4th paragraph), a day on which a minimum water temperature of the organic wastewater is expected to be below 15°C, wherein the sludge residence time is a time it takes for all of the activated sludge in the reaction takt oi be replaced; or (B-2) in a case where an index biomass in the reaction tank becomes equal to a threshold or exceeds the threshold.
Regarding Claim 8:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein a water temperature of the organic wastewater is such that: there is a difference of at least 50C between a maximum water temperature and a minimum water temperature in a year; and the minimum water temperature in a year is not lower than 4°C and lower than 150C (5-10°C range is a 5 degree difference) (see Huang pg. 4, 3rd and 9th paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 11:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 4, wherein the sludge resistance time is 3 days to 31 days (bacteria stays for several days (interpreted as at least 3) to one month) (see Sumino pg. 4, 4th paragraph). Given the prior art range of 3 to 31 days overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 200 days a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a residence time within the claimed range (see MEPE 2144.05).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino (WO 2014017429, English machine translation provided) in view of Huang et al (CN 106430528, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Uyama et al (JP 2011067730, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 4 wherein, the step (B) is a step of introducing the microorganism from the culture tank into the reaction tank in the step (B-2), and wherein.
Sumino is silent as to an index biomass.
Uyama teaches wastewater treatment method wherein microorganism from a culture tank are supplied (see pg. 1, Abstract) when an index biomass in the reaction tank becomes equal to a threshold or exceeds a threshold (see pg. 7, paragraphs 1-4) and wherein the index biomass is a value of soluble chemical oxygen demand (S-COD) concentration (COD) (see pg. 7, 1st paragraph); or a ratio of a mixed liquor volatile suspended solid (MLVSS) to a mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS).
Sumino and Uyama are analogous inventions in the art of adding cultured microorganism to a reaction tank. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the COD based microorganism dosing, as disclosed by Uyama to the method of Sumino because it allows for control of the quality of the treated water (see Uyama pg. 6, 1st paragraph, pg. 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 5, wherein: in a case where the index biomass is the value of the S-COD concentration (see Uyama pg. 7, 3rd paragraph).
The combination does not explicitly teach the S-COD concentration threshold is 100 mg/L; and in a case where the index biomass is the ratio of the mixed liquor volatile suspended solid (MLVSS) to the mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS), the threshold is a value obtained by increasing, by 5%, a reference value measured during one month centering on a day on which the organic wastewater has a maximum water temperature in a year. Uyama further teaches that the COD threshold (COD value of the treated water) is set in advance based on the COD target value (see Uyama pg. 7 3rd-4th paragraph) and setting the COD value allows the treated water COD to be controlled. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to change the COD threshold to 100 mg/L in order to reach the desired water quality for the treated water and to base the reference value on a maximum water temperature in a year. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 4.
Sumino does not explicitly teach a monitoring system.
Uyama further teaches the index biomass is monitored by a monitoring system (COD detector) (see Uyama pg. 7 1st paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the monitoring system of Uyama in the method of Sumino because it is the simple addition of a known monitor to a known process, obviously resulting in the biomass being measured, 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.).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino (WO 2014017429, English machine translation provided) in view of Huang et al (CN 106430528, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatsuno et al (JP 2005143454, English machine translation provided) and Sato (JP 2015226896, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 9:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 1.
Sumino does not teach step (C) which is carried out after the step (B): (C) detecting an amount of the microorganism in the reaction tank and, in a case where the amount is less than a threshold, further introducing the microorganism from the culture tank into the reaction tank.
Sato teaches detecting an amount of microorganism in a reaction tank (see Abstract).
Tatsuno teaches introducing microorganism from a culture tank to ensure that the amount of microorganism in the reaction tank is above a threshold (see pg. 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom).
Sumino, as modified, Sato, and Tatsuno are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect the amount of microorganisms in the reaction tank of Sumino, as disclosed by Sato, and add more microorganism such that the amount is above a threshold, as disclosed by Tatsuno because it improves the stability of the treatment reaction (see Tatsuno pg. 2: Advantageous Effects).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 9, wherein the amount of the microorganism is detected by: an analysis using an amount of 16S rRNA in the microorganism as an index (see Sato, Abstract); an analysis using real-time PCR; an antigen-antibody reaction; or a DNA.
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 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights