DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on August 4, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 7, line 25, use of the plural “includes” renders the sentence grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without more than then main steps recited in Claim 1 and without more than the main structure recited in Claim 9, which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Use of the words “main” in Claim 1 and “mainly” in Claim 9 indicate Applicant’s admit other steps and structure are essential to practice the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 3-5, and Claim 9 recite calculating an “oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device” yet the specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps (see EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm”)).
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 each recite a function of a calculation device to calculate an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device. The specification does not provide sufficient evidence to support enablement of the claim based on the In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), factor analysis below such that undue experimentation would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. As to the breadth of the claim, the claim encompasses all acts, algorithms, and steps that can be used to perform these functions. As to the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the invention relates to specific functions performed by the calculation device using any and all acts, algorithms, and steps yet the inventor does not provide any indication of how the calculation device may perform all acts, algorithms, and steps to perform the functions. As to the state of the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and predictability in the art, no evidence supports or detracts from enablement. As to the existence of working examples, no working examples have been provided in the specification. Finally, as to the quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention, undue experimentation would be required to determine all acts, algorithms, and steps that could perform the specific functions claimed.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 5 and 12 each recite the tail gas collection device arranged on a surface of the wastewater holding tank but the specification only discloses the collection device on the surface of the wastewater (Page 18 / Lines21-25 (“Pg/L”)).
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reason
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 purports to be a method for treating ammonia-containing wastewater yet ammonia-containing wastewater is not present but added in dependent Claim 5.
Claim 1 recites a calculation device performing the function of calculating an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device yet the specification provides no acts, algorithms, and steps performed by the calculation device (Fig. 1, item B6; Spec., Pg9/L1-4, Pg10/L5-Pg11/L13, Pg15/L17-20, Pg18/L4-7, Pg19/L1-7). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any device that performs functions related to the process.
Claim 1 recites operating the aeration device at a ratio yet that ratio depends on the calculation device (Spec., Pg3/L6-12) which lacks definition rendering the ratio indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as operating the aeration device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "ammonia-containing wastewater”" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites operating the aeration device at a ratio yet that ratio depends on the calculation device (Spec., Pg3/L6-12) which lacks definition rendering the ratio indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as operating the aeration device.
The term “low” in Claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “low” renders decreasing the dissolved oxygen to a certain “point” indefinite. For purposes of examination, the clause will be interpreted as requiring a dissolved oxygen sensor.
Claim 3 recites operating an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller set in part to an output amount while recording an aeration amount of the aeration device yet provides no units as to what the amounts reference such as volume, mass, or some other measurement. For purposes of examination the clause will be interpreted as requiring an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller.
Claim 3 recites dissolved oxygen present in the ammonia-containing wastewater and the ammonia-containing wastewater reaching saturation yet does not provide what species in the ammonia-containing wastewater reaches the saturation point. For purposes of examination, the clause will be interpreted as requiring the presence of dissolved oxygen in the ammonia-containing wastewater.
Claim 3 recites calculating an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device yet the specification provides no acts, algorithms, and steps performed by the calculation device (Fig. 1, item B6; Spec., Pg9/L1-4, Pg10/L5-Pg11/L13, Pg15/L17-20, Pg18/L4-7, Pg19/L1-7). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any device that performs functions related to the process.
The term “high” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “high” renders increasing the dissolved oxygen to a certain “point” indefinite. For purposes of examination, the clause will be interpreted as requiring a dissolved oxygen sensor.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “oversaturation” in a parenthetical rendering the claim indefinite as to whether the limitation is part of the claim or not.
Claim 4 recites operating an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller set in part to an output amount while recording an aeration amount of the aeration device yet provides no units as to what the amounts reference such as volume, mass, or some other measurement. For purposes of examination the clause will be interpreted as requiring an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller.
Claim 4 recites dissolved oxygen present in the ammonia-containing wastewater and the ammonia-containing wastewater reaching saturation yet does not provide what species in the ammonia-containing wastewater reaches the saturation point. For purposes of examination, the clause will be interpreted as requiring the presence of dissolved oxygen in the ammonia-containing wastewater.
Claim 4 recites calculating an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device yet the specification provides no acts, algorithms, and steps performed by the calculation device (Fig. 1, item B6; Spec., Pg9/L1-4, Pg10/L5-Pg11/L13, Pg15/L17-20, Pg18/L4-7, Pg19/L1-7). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any device that performs functions related to the process.
Claim 5 recites operating an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller set in part to an output amount while recording an aeration amount of the aeration device yet provides no units as to what the amounts reference such as volume, mass, or some other measurement. For purposes of examination the clause will be interpreted as requiring an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller.
Claim 5 recites a tail gas collection device arranged on the surface of the tank yet how the device may be arranged on the tank instead of the surface of the ammonia-containing wastewater is not made clear by the claim, drawings, or specification.
Claim 5 recites calculating an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device yet the specification provides no acts, algorithms, and steps performed by the calculation device (Fig. 1, item B6; Spec., Pg9/L1-4, Pg10/L5-Pg11/L13, Pg15/L17-20, Pg18/L4-7, Pg19/L1-7). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any device that performs functions related to the process.
Claim 9 recites operating an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller that control an output amount yet what the amount references such as volume, mass, or some other measurement. Further, besides the units, what exactly the amount references such as gas or wastewater is not clear. For purposes of examination the clause will be interpreted as requiring an aeration time controller and a gas flowrate controller.
Claim 9 recites a calculation device performing the function of calculating an oxygen transfer coefficient-aeration flowrate relationship of the aeration device yet the specification provides no acts, algorithms, and steps performed by the calculation device (Fig. 1, item B6; Spec., Pg9/L1-4, Pg10/L5-Pg11/L13, Pg15/L17-20, Pg18/L4-7, Pg19/L1-7). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any device that performs functions related to the process.
Claim 9 recites operating the aeration device at a ratio yet that ratio depends on the calculation device (Spec., Pg3/L6-12) which lacks definition rendering the ratio indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as operating the aeration device.
Claim 10 recites operating the aeration device at a ratio yet that ratio depends on the calculation device (Spec., Pg3/L6-12) which lacks definition rendering the ratio indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as operating the aeration device.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "dissolved oxygen content" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites a tail gas collection device arranged on the surface of the tank yet how the device may be arranged on the tank instead of the surface of the ammonia-containing wastewater is not made clear by the claim, drawings, or specification.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct, Hazard, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0006414 and Cheuk, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2007/0175823, appear to disclose, either alone or in combination, the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779