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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 16JAN2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b), 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17OCT2025. Applicant's arguments filed 16JAN2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7,25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the specification as originally filed describes the sedimentation period is e.g. from about 1 min to about 30 minutes (par. [0055]). The specification as originally filed does not support an unbounded lower range including a sedimentation period of less than 30 min.
Regarding claim 25, the specification as originally filed describes an agitation period of from about 0.1 second to about 120 minutes (min; par. [0053]). The specification as originally filed does not support an unbounded lower range including an agitation period of less than 30 min.
Regarding claim 30, the claim requires the combination of activated sludge and possibly also a waste stabilization pond process, or an algae-based process; however, the specification as originally filed describes activated sludge, a waste stabilization pond process, and an algae-based process as alternatives for a secondary treatment process (par. [0038]).
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, the claim requires the combination of activated sludge and possibly also a waste stabilization pond process, or an algae-based process; however, the specification as originally filed describes activated sludge, a waste stabilization pond process, and an algae-based process as alternatives for a secondary treatment process. Presumably, the claim scope is intended as alternatives and thus the claim scope is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2,5-9,11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FISCHER et. al. 1940 “Improved Sewage Clarification by Pre-Flocculation without Chemicals”.
Regarding claim 1, FISCHER teaches improved sewage clarification by pre-flocculation without chemicals (title) including a method for treatment of wastewater (water treatment or sewage; P280/third paragraph), comprising the steps of:
receiving a wastewater containing solid particles in suspension (P280/first paragraph), wherein no aggregation-enhancing compound is added to the wastewater (mechanical flocculation; P281/first paragraph under “mechanics of solids removal”;
agitating the wastewater for a specified agitation period under specified agitation conditions (using e.g. paddles; P283/first paragraph under “laboratory experiments”) sufficient to enable auto-flocculation (P281/first paragraph under “mechanics of solids removal”) of at least a portion the solid particles into flocs without adding chemical coagulant, chemical flocculant, or any other aggregation-enhancing compound, to provide an agitated wastewater;
allowing the agitated wastewater to settle for a specified sedimentation period to allow at least a portion of the flocs to settle (P283/first paragraph under “laboratory experiments”); and
separating at least a portion of the settled flocs from the agitated wastewater to provide a clarified wastewater effluent (see e.g. TABLE II).
Regarding claims 2,5, FISCHER teaches the specified agitation conditions comprise e.g. a specified mixing speed at 14 RPM (P283/first paragraph under “laboratory experiments”), which anticipates the claimed range of 5-100 RPM.
Regarding claim 6, FISCHER teaches the specified agitation period is e.g. 30 minutes (TABLE II), which anticipates the claimed range of from about 0.1 second to about 120 minutes.
Regarding claim 7, FISCHER teaches the specified sedimentation period is e.g. 20 minutes (TABLE II), which anticipates the claimed range of less than 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 8, FISCHER teaches the wastewater comprises a raw wastewater (TABLE II).
Regarding claim 9, FISCHER teaches the wastewater has a total suspended solids content of e.g. 896 ppm (or ~896 mg/L; Ortonville, Minn. TABLE II), which anticipates the claimed range of from about 200 mg/L to about 1500 mg/L.
Regarding claims 11-12, FISCHER teaches further comprising treating the clarified wastewater effluent in a secondary treatment process;
wherein the secondary treatment process comprises an activated sludge process (P298/last paragraph).
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.
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) 3-4,25,27-28,30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FISCHER et. al. 1940 “Improved Sewage Clarification by Pre-Flocculation without Chemicals”.
Regarding claim 3-4, FISCHER does not specify a shear force or shear rate. However, FISCHER does teach that the flocs were delicate and that high speed vertical stirrers (i.e. high shear) are unsuitable. FISCHER teaches shear force or shear rate are results-effective variables that affects the floc structure and settling properties. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed shear force or shear rate range because FISCHER teaches shear force or shear rate is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Regarding claim 25, FISCHER teaches improved sewage clarification by pre-flocculation without chemicals (title) including a method for treatment of wastewater (water treatment or sewage; P280/third paragraph), comprising the steps of:
receiving a wastewater containing solid particles in suspension (P280/first paragraph), wherein no aggregation-enhancing compound is added to the wastewater (mechanical flocculation; P281/first paragraph under “mechanics of solids removal”;
agitating the wastewater for a specified agitation period under specified agitation conditions (using e.g. paddles; P283/first paragraph under “laboratory experiments”) of e.g. 30 minutes (TABLE II), which anticipates the claimed range of 30 minutes or less sufficient to enable auto-flocculation (P281/first paragraph under “mechanics of solids removal”) of at least a portion the solid particles into flocs without adding chemical coagulant, chemical flocculant, or any other aggregation-enhancing compound, to provide an agitated wastewater;
allowing the agitated wastewater to settle for a specified sedimentation period to allow at least a portion of the flocs to settle (P283/first paragraph under “laboratory experiments”); and
separating at least a portion of the settled flocs from the agitated wastewater to provide a clarified wastewater effluent (see e.g. TABLE II).
FISCHER does not specify a shear force or shear rate. However, FISCHER does teach that the flocs were delicate and that high speed vertical stirrers (i.e. high shear) are unsuitable. FISCHER teaches shear force or shear rate are results-effective variables that affects the floc structure and settling properties. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed shear force or shear rate range because FISCHER teaches shear force or shear rate is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Regarding claim 27, FISCHER teaches the wastewater has a total suspended solids content of e.g. 896 ppm (or ~896 mg/L; Ortonville, Minn. TABLE II), which anticipates the claimed range of from about 200 mg/L to about 1500 mg/L.
Regarding claims 28,30, FISCHER teaches further comprising treating the clarified wastewater effluent in a secondary treatment process comprising activated sludge (P298/last paragraph).
Claim(s) 10,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISCHER et. al. 1940 “Improved Sewage Clarification by Pre-Flocculation without Chemicals” in view of HORVATH (4049545).
Regarding claims 10,29, FISCHER is silent as to the wastewater comprises an effluent from a clarifier in a wastewater treatment process or blending activated sludge with raw wastewater. However, HORVATH teaches a chemical waste water treatment method (title, Fig.) comprising:
receiving the wastewater containing solid particles in suspension (C4/L20-26; Fig. 2 #2);
agitating the wastewater for a specified agitation period under specified agitation conditions sufficient to enable auto-flocculation of at least a portion of the solid particles into flocs to provide an agitated wastewater (C4/L32-33; C5/L23-29; note that only the agitation conditions is required);
allowing the agitated wastewater to settle for a specified sedimentation period to allow at least a portion of the flocs to settle (Fig. 2 #10; C6/L26-30); and
separating at least a portion of the settled flocs (Fig. 2 #11 are removed at the bottom) from the agitated wastewater to provide a clarified wastewater effluent (liquid from Fig. 2 #10 is removed from the top; C8/L59-66; C9/L53-58); and,
the wastewater comprises an effluent from a clarifier (e.g. Fig. 2 #12; note the recycle line #31) in a wastewater treatment process.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of FISCHER to include an effluent from a clarifier or activated sludge in order to efficiently separate wastewater by recycle flows as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 13-14,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISCHER et. al. 1940 “Improved Sewage Clarification by Pre-Flocculation without Chemicals” in view of HODAIFA (ES 2673673).
Regarding claim 13, FISCHER does not teach illuminating the wastewater simultaneously with the agitating of the wastewater. However, HODAIFA teaches a method for the treatment of wastewater based on photoxidation by ultraviolet light (title, Figs. see translation) including a stirred-tank reactor (Fig. 2 #C) with an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2 #5).
HODAIFA teaches photo-oxidation degrades organic matter (L311).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of FISCHER with illuminating while simultaneously agitating the wastewater of HODAIFA in order to remove the organic pollutants. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 14,26, FISCHER’s modified device does not specify the amount of illuminance. However, FISCHER teaches a sufficient number of lamps that emit ultraviolet light and that allow the complete illumination of the reactor (L313-314). Clearly the amount of illuminance is a results-effective variable that affects the amount of photo-oxidation. Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed illuminance range because HODAIFA teaches illuminance is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Telephonic Inquiries
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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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 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.
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights