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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 7,273,561 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Palmer teaches methods for reducing sulfide concentrations in wastewater stream (controlling hydrogen sulfide concentration in a wastewater stream) which includes measuring the concentration of sulfide gas in a gas phase (measuring with a sensor a hydrogen sulfide concentration in one phase, including a gas phase) and further measuring an additional parameter such as a temperature (measuring, with a sensor, at least one additional parameter) in order to calculate the dissolved hydrogen sulfide concentration in the wastewater (calculating a hydrogen sulfide concentration in the other phase based on the measured concentration and the measured additional parameter) [Abs]. Additionally, Palmer teaches that the measurements thus performed can be used to determine a corrective action i.e. to control dosing of a chemical treatment agent in order to achieve a target level of hydrogen sulfide in the stream, in either closed loop or open loop fashion [Col. 8 lines 41-45] (determining a treatment dosage and applying a treatment dosage).
As best understood, the process of Palmer anticipates the claimed invention, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to claim 2, the process works based on a deterministic model factoring in theoretical relationships, specifically Henry’s law [Col. 8 lines 53-64].
With respect to claims 3-5, the model incorporates empirical relationships between the two concentrations and the additional factor, specifically via the Henry’s constant at a given temperature for hydrogen sulfide in water.
With respect to claim 6, as above the process is designed to attain a target i.e. threshold level of dissolved hydrogen sulfide in the wastewater stream, and controls dosage accordingly.
With respect to claims 7-10, the process includes sensors and measurements for additional values including temperature, pH, and flowrate [Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 11, the set of variables includes at least one known parameter of the wastewater stream e.g. a temperature, pH, flowrate, etc. as above.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer in view of Chiu et al (US 5,587,926 A).
Palmer teaches as above, but is silent to a specific parameter including e.g. a mean velocity of the wastewater stream. However, as above, Palmer does teach measuring flowrate with suitable sensors [Fig. 6], and Chiu teaches that in general a system may determine a flowrate by first measuring the average velocity at a specific point of e.g. known or controlled cross-sectional area [Col. 11 lines 25-28 and lines 44-47]. As such, it would have been obvious to employ sensors which measure the average velocity of the flow in Palmer’s taught process and use that to calculate flowrate as part of the flowrate measurement because, as in Chiu, this is a standard method of determining flowrate.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer in view of Parker et al (US PGPub 2007/0259416 A1).
Palmer teaches as above but is silent to a process in which the corrective action is carried out via a hydrogen gas scrubber, and includes actions such as adjustment of downtime or initiation of maintenance.
However, Parker teaches systems for treatment of gases [Abs] including in sewage systems or related wastewater treatment systems [0016], to treat species such as hydrogen sulfide and similar malodorous compounds [0006] which may be removed via a suitable gas scrubber system [0047]. The system may include various sensors to detect parameters such as flowrates as well as concentrations of e.g. hydrogen sulfide at points in the system [0062]; further, information from such sensors may signal that the system requires maintenance, as well as otherwise indicating that corrective action or changes in operational parameters may be needed.
It would have been obvious to employ the concentration calculation methods of Palmer to processes such as those contemplated by Parker because, as in Parker, removal of malodorous gasses via scrubbing is useful within the context of wastewater treatment and hydrogen sulfide management and, further, as in Parker, it would have been obvious to use the concentrations calculated by Palmer to indicate that elements of the system e.g. scrubbers or the like might require maintenance, and to therefore adjust operations, scheduling, or initiate maintenance cycles accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights