DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-13, 15-42 and 44-67 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 21, 27-30, 56-58, 66 and 67 are pending.
Claim 14 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 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Whiteman or Whiteman ‘430 to add thermophiles to high temperature wastewater. Although the applicant is correct that the Whiteman and ‘430 do not explicitly teach adding thermophilic bacteria to high temperature wastewater with a temperature of more than 35°C it would have been obvious in view of ‘430 to have the wastewater at a temperature of greater than 35°C. ‘430 teaches that different microbes (such as thermophilic) are used to treat different environments (see ‘430 para. 0041), that thermophilic microbes grow optimally at 55-75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073) and that the type of microbe selected depends on the type of wastewater (see ‘430 para. 0073), therefore when added thermophilic microbes it would have been obvious to have the wastewater at 55-75°C (greater than 35°C) the ensure optimal growth. Further it is well known in the art to add doses of thermophilic microbes to high temperature water of greater than 35°C see for example, Wei et al (CN 103058475, English machine translation provided, Abstract, para. 0014), Hasegawa et al (CN 1346808, English machine translation provided, Abstract, pg. 4, 2nd-3rd paragraph and last paragraph, pgs. 5, 2nd paragraph from bottom, pgs. 6, 2nd and 6th paragraphs ), and Dai et al (CN 106242215, English machine translation provided, Abstract, pgs. 3, 1st-6th paragraphs).
The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 65 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not appear to contain proper cross outs and underling, further the claim contains a period followed by additional microbes. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13, 15-42 and 44-67 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 Claims 1 and 30:
The claims state “a method of treating a high temperature wastewater…to a high temperature wastewater…” It is not clear if these are the same high temperature wastewater or different high temperature wastewaters.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from indefinite 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) 1-13, 15-42, and 44-66 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteman (US 2020/0087183) in view of Whiteman (US 2010/0193430, hereafter referred to as ‘430).
Regarding Claim 1:
Whiteman teaches the method of treating a wastewater stream, the method comprising: a. in a wastewater treatment system having an influent stream of wastewater containing pollutants, the wastewater treatment system comprising a first treatment device, and a second treatment device; wherein the wastewater flows from the first treatment device to the second treatment device (see claim 1, step a); b. adding a plurality of microbes to the wastewater in the wastewater treatment system at a controlled and predetermined dosing rate; the microbes selected to remove the pollutants from the wastewater; the plurality of microbes containing from about 103 cfu/ml to 1013 cfu/ml (see claim 1, step b).
Whiteman does not teach that the microbes are thermophilic or that the high temperature wastewater has a temperature greater than 35°C.
‘430 teaches a method of treating a high temperature wastewater stream with a temperature greater than 35°C (treatment depends on the type of wastewater, thermophiles are optimal for temperatures 55-75°C) (see para. 0073, 0202) and the use of thermophilic microbes to treat wastewater (see para. 0202, 0041).
Whiteman and ‘430 are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater streams with doses of microbes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the microbes of Whiteman with the thermophilic microbes of ‘430 because it is the simple substitution of one known microbe for another known microbe, obviously resulting in the reduction in pollutants in the wastewater, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Further it is known to use different types of microbes (such as thermophilic) to address different problems in the wastewater (see ‘430 para. 0041). It would have also been obvious to treat wastewater having a temperature of greater than 35°C because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate sources of wastewater to treat with the known method and it is known that high temperature wastewater is appropriate to treat with thermophilic microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 2:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pollutants in the wastewater are reduced providing an effluent having pollutants as measured by DOD and TSS reduced by at least about 50% (at least 90%) from the influent wastewater stream (see Whiteman claim 1, step d).
Regarding Claim 3:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pollutants in the wastewater are reduced providing an effluent having pollutants as measured by DOD and TSS reduced by at least about 90% (at least 90%) from the influent wastewater stream (see Whiteman claim 1, step d).
Regarding Claim 4:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 1, 2 or 3, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 10,000 GPD to about 500,000 GPD (see Whiteman para. 0149, 0004).
Regarding Claim 5:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 1, 2 or 3, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 1 MGD to 100 MGD (see Whiteman para. 0004). Given that the prior art range of 1 to 100 MGD overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 MGD to about 2 MGD a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the known method on a plant with a throughput of 0.5 MGD to about 2 MGD (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 1, 2 or 3, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 2 MGD to about 60 MGD (5 MGD to 40 MGD) (see Whiteman claim 2).
Regarding Claim 7:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 1, 2 or 3, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 20 MGD to about 100 MGD (see Whiteman claim 3).
Regarding Claim 8:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 1, 2 or 3, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 2 MGD and greater (greater than 10 MGD) (see Whiteman claim 4).
Regarding Claim 9:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the first treatment device.
Whiteman further teaches that the microbes can be added to locations such as screens (see para. 0107) and that the first treatment tank includes screens (see para. 0018), Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the microbes to the first treatment tank because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate locations for the addition of the thermophilic microbes and it is known that screens are an appropriate location. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 10:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the second treatment device (see Whiteman claim 6).
Regarding Claim 11:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wastewater treatment system comprises a third treatment device; wherein the wastewater flows from the second treatment device to the third treatment device (see Whiteman claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the third treatment device (see Whiteman claim 7).
Regarding Claim 13:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the microbes are added to the second and third treatment devices; whereby the controlled and predetermined dosing rate is cumulative of a dose rate for each treatment device (see Whiteman claim 8).
Regarding Claim 15:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of greater than 37 °C (98.6 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (greater than 37°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 16:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of greater than 41 °C (105.8 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (greater than 41°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 17:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of from 37 °C (98.6 °F) to about 55 °C (131 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (within the range of about 37 to about 55°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 18-20:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination is silent to the ambient air temperature. However given that the system of Whiteman includes lagoons and ponds (see para. 0003, 0047) they inherently include outdoor locations and therefore the ambient temperature would be any outdoor air temperature. Therefore the ambient air temperature would inherently include greater than 15 °C (59 °F), about 30 °C (86 °F) and greater, or about 27 °C (80.6 °F) to 39 °C (102.2 °F) as these are known air temperatures.
Regarding Claim 21:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
Whiteman does not explicitly teach wherein mesophilic microbes are added to the high wastewater.
‘430 teaches that mesophilic microbes can be added to wastewater as desired (see para. 0202).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the mesophilic microbes of ‘430 to the system of Whiteman because it is the simple addition of one known microbe to a wastewater treatment system, obviously resulting in the reduction in pollutants in 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.). .). Further it is known to use different types of microbes (such as mesophilic) to address different problems in the wastewater (see ‘430 para. 0041).
Regarding Claims 22-25 and 27-29:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the methods of claims 21, 2, 9, and 11.
‘430 further teaches that mesophilic microbes should be added in a temperature range of about 30 to 37°C which is 8 to 50°C cooler that the temperature range for the thermophilic microbes (influent temperature). Given that the prior art range of 8°C to 50°C overlaps the claimed ranges of least 5 °C (25 °F) cooler, least 10 °C (50 °F) cooler, least 15 °C (59 °F) cooler, and at least 20 °C (68 °F) cooler that the influent temperature a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to add the mesophilic microbes at a temperature within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 26:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21.
‘430 further teaches that mesophilic microbes should be added in a temperature range of about 30 to 37°C which is 8 to 50°C cooler that the temperature range for the thermophilic microbes. Given that the prior art range of 8°C to 50°C overlaps the claimed ranges of least 5 °C (25 °F) cooler than the temperature of the wastewater at the point of addition of the thermophilic microbes one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to add the mesophilic microbes at a temperature within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 30:
Whiteman teaches the method of treating a stream the method comprising: a. in a wastewater treatment system having an influent stream of wastewater containing pollutants, the wastewater treatment system comprising a first treatment device, a second treatment device a third treatment device and a fourth treatment device; b. adding a plurality of microbes to a wastewater in the wastewater treatment system at a controlled and predetermined dosing rate; the microbes selected to remove the pollutants from the high temperature wastewater; the plurality of thermophilic microbes containing from about 103 cfu/ml to 1013 cfu/ml (see claim 1); c. wherein the first treatment device comprises screens and a girt chamber, where by large particles, plastic and girt are removed from the wastewater; d. wherein the second treatment device comprises a basin; e. wherein the third treatment device comprises a settling tank; wherein a return stream comprising an activated sludge is flowed to the second treatment device; wherein the effluent is flowed from the third treatment device; f. wherein the fourth treatment device comprises a holding tank; wherein sludge from the third treatment device is flowed to the fourth treatment device; wherein the sludge is thickened (see para. 0018).
Whiteman does not teach that the microbes are thermophilic or that the high temperature wastewater has a temperature greater than 35°C.
‘430 teaches a method of treating a high temperature wastewater stream with a temperature greater than 35°C (treatment depends on the type of wastewater, thermophiles are optimal for temperatures 55-75°C) (see para. 0073, 0202) and the use of thermophilic microbes to treat wastewater (see para. 0202, 0041).
Whiteman and ‘430 are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater streams with doses of microbes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the microbes of Whiteman with the thermophilic microbes of ‘430 because it is the simple substitution of one known microbe for another known microbe, obviously resulting in the reduction in pollutants in the wastewater, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Further it is known to use different types of microbes (such as thermophilic) to address different problems in the wastewater (see ‘430 para. 0041). It would have also been obvious to treat wastewater having a temperature of greater than 35°C because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate sources of wastewater to treat with the known method and it is known that high temperature wastewater is appropriate to treat with thermophilic microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 31:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the pollutants in the wastewater are reduced providing an effluent having pollutants as measured by DOD and TSS reduced by at least about 50% from the influent wastewater stream (see Whiteman claim 1).
Regarding Claim 32:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, wherein the pollutants in the wastewater are reduced providing an effluent having pollutants as measured by DOD and TSS reduced by at least about 90% from the influent wastewater stream (see Whiteman claim 1).
Regarding Claim 33:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, 31, and 32, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 10,000 GPD to about 500,000 GPD (see Whiteman para. 0149, 0004).
Regarding Claim 34:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, 31 or 32, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 1 MGD to 100 MGD (see Whiteman para. 0004). Given that the prior art range of 1 to 100 MGD overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 MGD to about 2 MGD a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the known method on a plant with a throughput of 0.5 MGD to about 2 MGD (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 35:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, 31, or 32 wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 2 MGD to about 60 MGD (5 MGD to 40 MGD) (see Whiteman claim 2).
Regarding Claim 36:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, 31, or 33, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 20 MGD to about 100 MGD (see Whiteman claim 3).
Regarding Claim 37:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 30, 31, or 33, wherein the wastewater treatment plant has a throughput of about 2 MGD and greater (greater than 10 MGD) (see Whiteman claim 4).
Regarding Claim 38:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the first treatment device.
Whiteman further teaches that the microbes can be added to locations such as screens (see para. 0107) and that the first treatment tank includes screens (see para. 0018), Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the microbes to the first treatment tank because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate locations for the addition of the thermophilic microbes and it is known that screens are an appropriate location. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 39:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the second treatment device (see Whiteman claim 10).
Regarding Claim 40:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the third device (see Whiteman claim 11).
Regarding Claim 41:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermophilic microbes are added to the fourth treatment device (see Whiteman claim 14).
Regarding Claim 42:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the microbes are added to a plurality of the treatment devices; whereby the controlled and predetermined dosing rate is cumulative of a dose rate for each treatment device (see Whiteman claim 12).
Regarding Claim 44:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of greater than 37 °C (98.6 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (greater than 37°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 45:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of greater than 41 °C (105.8 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (greater than 41°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 46:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination does not teach wherein the influent wastewater stream has a temperature of from 37 °C (98.6 °F) to about 55 °C (131 °F).
‘430 teaches that thermophilic microbes grow optimally between 55 and 75°C (see ‘430 para. 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a influent temperature of 55°C (within the range of about 37 to about 55°C) in order for the optimum growth of the added microbes (see ‘430 para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 47-49:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination is silent to the ambient air temperature. However given that the system of Whiteman includes lagoons and ponds (see para. 0003, 0047) they inherently include outdoor locations and therefore the ambient temperature would be any outdoor air temperature. Therefore the ambient air temperature would inherently include greater than 15 °C (59 °F), about 30 °C (86 °F) and greater, or about 27 °C (80.6 °F) to 39 °C (102.2 °F) as these are known air temperatures.
Regarding Claim 50:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
Whiteman does not explicitly teach wherein mesophilic microbes are added to the wastewater.
‘430 teaches that mesophilic microbes can be added to wastewater as desired (see para. 0202).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the mesophilic microbes of ‘430 to the system of Whiteman because it is the simple addition of one known microbe to a wastewater treatment system, obviously resulting in the reduction in pollutants in 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.). .). Further it is known to use different types of microbes (such as mesophilic) to address different problems in the wastewater (see ‘430 para. 0041).
Regarding Claims 51-54 and 56-58:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claims 50, 40, 43, and 45.
‘430 further teaches that mesophilic microbes should be added in a temperature range of about 30 to 37°C which is 8 to 50°C cooler that the temperature range for the thermophilic microbes (influent temperature). Given that the prior art range of 8°C to 50°C overlaps the claimed ranges of least 5 °C (25 °F) cooler, least 10 °C (50 °F) cooler, least 15 °C (59 °F) cooler, and at least 20 °C (68 °F) cooler that the influent temperature a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to add the mesophilic microbes at a temperature within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 55:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21.
‘430 further teaches that mesophilic microbes should be added in a temperature range of about 30 to 37°C which is 8 to 50°C cooler that the temperature range for the thermophilic microbes. Given that the prior art range of 8°C to 50°C overlaps the claimed ranges of least 5 °C (25 °F) cooler than the temperature of the wastewater at the point of addition of the thermophilic microbes one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to add the mesophilic microbes at a temperature within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 59:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a sludge is produced (see Whiteman claim 9, step c).
Regarding Claim 60:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 or 30, wherein the sludge has a fecal coliform level of less than 1,000 most probable number (MPN) per gram of total solids (fry weight), and a salmonella sp. Bacterium of less than 3 MPN per 4 grams total solids (dry weight) (see Whiteman claim 3).
Regarding Claim 61:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein a second dose of microbes is added to the fourth treatment device (see Whiteman claim 14).
Regarding Claim 62:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the second device does not have oxygen added to it (see Whiteman claim 15).
Regarding Claim 63:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 or 30, wherein the wastewater is from a paper mill (see Whiteman para. 0043, 0158)
Regarding Claim 64:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 or 30, wherein the wastewater is from a pump mill (see Whiteman para. 0043, 0159)
Regarding Claim 65:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 or 30, wherein the thermophilic microbes are selected from the one or more microbes kodakarensis, aquaticus, stearothermophilus, flavotehrmus, licheniformis, pantotropha (see Whiteman para. 0120), helviticus, delbrueckii, bulgaricus, acidoterrestris, disulfidooxidans, sacchari,clariflavum, butyricum, Lactis, thermopholis, and laterosporus.
Regarding Claim 66:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 or 30, wherein the thermophilic microbes are selected from the one or more genera of microbes (Thiosphera pantotropha) (see Whiteman para. 0120)
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteman (US 2020/0087183) in view of Whiteman (US 2010/0193430, hereafter referred to as ‘430) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of McWhirter et al (USPN 6,966,983).
Regarding Claim 67:
Whiteman, as modified, teaches the method of claim 30.
The combination does not explicitly teach at least 50% of the effluent is reused in a factory that created the influent stream of wastewater.
McWhirter teaches a method of treating wastewater with thermophilic bacteria wherein the wastewater is reused in a factory that created the influent stream of wastewater (reused) (see col. 20 lines 16-22). McWhirter does not explicitly teach that at least 50% is reused, however it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to reuse as much water as possible because it is the goal of the invention to reduce the quantity of sludge generated (thereby increase the quantity of cleaned water) (see col. 1 lines 6-14).
Whiteman, as modified, and McWhirter are analogous inventions in the art of thermophilic treatment of wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to reuse at least 50% of the effluent of Whiteman in the factory that created the influent, as disclosed by McWhirter, because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate uses for the product stream (reuse) (see McWhirter col. 20 lines 16-22). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
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 3/11/2026