DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are amended.
Claim 11 is new.
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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to maintain a culture temperature of at least 6°C lower than a water temperature in view of Sumino ad Huang because Huang teaches a difference in water temperature of at most 5°C. This argument is not persuasive because Sumino teaches a water temperature of 15°C or lower and a culture temperature of 0-15°C (see Sumino Abstract). Therefore Sumino teaches the culture temperature can be 15°C lower or warmer than the water temperature. And it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a range of at least 6°C lower . Further no significance is shown with respect to the culture temperature being 6°C lower in comparison to 5°C lower. The applicant argues unexpected results with respect to the “cold shock”. This argument is not persuasive because Sumino and Huang teach the benefit of cold culturing the microorganisms.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.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.
Claim 6 is 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 6:
The claim states “the organic wastewater has a maximum water temperature in a year…the maximum water temperature is a year is expected to be recorded”. It is not clear if the maximum water temperature in a year is a predicted value, based on a previous year, or something else.
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) 1-4, 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.
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).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sumino, as modified, teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, 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 (5 °C is not higher than the 5-10°C range) (see Huang pg. 4, 3rd and 9th paragraphs).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 1/20/2026