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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard.
Regarding Claim 1, Odegaard is directed to a method for purification of waste water and to a reactor containing carriers having a biofilm for use in the method (Abstract).
Odegaard discloses a biological waste water treatment method, comprising: providing at least one biological reactor; providing biology carriers (2) within the at least one biological reactor; permitting biology to form on the biology carriers; providing wastewater into the at least one biological reactor; treating the wastewater anaerobically within at least one of the biological reactors, and treating the wastewater aerobically within at least one of the biological reactors, to produce biologically treated water; separating the biology carriers from a majority of the biologically treated water; and returning the biology carriers to one of the at least one biological reactors or retaining the biology carriers within the biological reactor (Abstract; Col.1 Lines 12-24; Col. 5 Lines 9-14; Col.6 Lines 38-46; Fig.4A).
Regarding Claim 2, Odegaard discloses the method comprising treating the wastewater anoxically within at least one of the biological reactors (Abstract; Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 9, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Odegaard discloses the method wherein the biology carriers have a saturated specific gravity of 0.9-1.2 which anticipate the claimed saturated specific gravity of about 0.8 to about 1.5 (Abstract; Col. 3, Lines 50-63).
Regarding Claim 17, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Odegaard discloses the method wherein the biologically treated water has flocculant biology or biology which has become detached from carriers (Col.1, Lines 51-57); and further comprising removing a portion of the flocculant biology or the biology which has become detached from the carriers from the biologically treated water (Col.7, Lines 12-15).
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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Casbeer Dana et al. (WO 2020264153 A1) herein known as Casbeer.
Regarding Claims 3-8, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Odegaard is silent to the method wherein the anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor (Claim 3), wherein the biological carrier defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion, an inside portion, and a central portion therebetween, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, the central portion supporting anoxic treatment by bacteria thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 4), wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion, inside portion, and central portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (Claim 5).
Casbeer is directed to wastewater treatment involving a conventional biological moving bed biofilm [0001].
Casbeer discloses the method wherein the anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor(120A) ([0030]; Fig. 1B) (Claim 3).
Casbeer discloses the method wherein the biological carrier (121) defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion, an inside portion, and a central portion therebetween, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, the central portion supporting anoxic treatment by bacteria thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 4) ([0027]; [0030]).
Casbeer discloses the method wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor (120A) occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion, inside portion, and central portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (121) (Claim 5) ([0027]; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method for wherein the anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor (Claim 3), wherein the biological carrier defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion, an inside portion, and a central portion therebetween, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, the central portion supporting anoxic treatment by bacteria thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 4), wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion, inside portion, and central portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (Claim 5), as taught by Casbeer, in order to facilitate the diffusion of oxygen to the carrier and allowing simultaneous nitrification and denitrification processes in biological reactor. Also because of the use of a very high active surface area floating carrier in the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), the reactor can be sized significantly smaller than a traditional MBBR treatment tank (See Casbeer, [[0027]; [0030]]).
However, Odegaard is silent to the method wherein the anaerobic and aerobic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor (Claim 6), wherein the biological carrier defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion and an inside portion, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 7), wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion and inside portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (Claim 8).
Casbeer discloses the method wherein the anaerobic and aerobic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor (120A) (Claim 6) [0030].
Casbeer discloses the method wherein the biological carrier (121) defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion and an inside portion, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 7) ([0027]; [0030]).
Casbeer discloses the method wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor (120A) occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion and inside portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (Claim 8) ([0027]; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method for wherein the anaerobic and aerobic treatment occur simultaneously for at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor (Claim 6), wherein the biological carrier defines a plurality of recesses, the recesses containing biology, each of the recesses defining an outside portion and an inside portion, the outside portion supporting aerobic treatment by biology thereon, and the inner portion supporting anaerobic treatment by bacteria thereon (Claim 7), wherein at least a portion of treating the wastewater anaerobically and aerobically within the biological reactor occurs simultaneously as a result of the outside portion and inside portion defined by the recesses defined by the biological carrier (Claim 8), as taught by Casbeer, in order to facilitate the diffusion of oxygen to the carrier and allowing simultaneous nitrification and denitrification processes in biological reactor. Also because of to the use of a very high active surface area floating carrier in the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), the reactor can be sized significantly smaller than a traditional MBBR treatment tank (See Casbeer, [[0027]; [0030]]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Xie, Chen-ying et al. (CN 112744916 A, machine translation) herein known as Xie.
Regarding Claims 10-11, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Odegaard is silent to the method wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biological materials (Claim 10), wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biochar (Claim 11).
Xie is directed to the field of eutrophic water treatment technology, specifically relating to a method for treating polluted water bodies using a simultaneous nitrification denitrification biological carrier coupling system [n0001].
Xie discloses the method wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biological materials (Claim 10) [n0030], wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biochar (Claim 11) [n0030]. Xie also discloses constructing the simultaneous nitrification and denitrification biocarrier coupling system wherein biochar is prepared from agricultural waste such as rice husks, wood chips, rice straw, sawdust, and corn cobs using an oxygen-limited heating carbonization method. Xie also discloses using agricultural waste as a biodegradable biomass carrier for treatment can not only reduce treatment costs, but also make use of existing green resources and provide the comprehensive utilization of agricultural waste. In addition, biochar has a large specific surface area, which can effectively adsorb pollutants and provide some mineral nutrients to promote microbial growth ([n0004], [n0030])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method, wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biological materials (Claim 10), wherein the biology carriers are made at least partially from biochar (Claim 11) as taught by Xie, in order to construct the simultaneous nitrification and denitrification biocarrier coupling system, and because biochar has a large specific surface area, which can effectively adsorb pollutants and provide some mineral nutrients to promote microbial growth, which is of great significance for improving conventional biofilm methods (See Xie, [n0004], [n0030]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Houweling; Dwight Cornelius et al. (US 20210253460 A1) herein known as Houweling.
Regarding Claims 12-13, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Odegaard is silent to the method wherein the biological reactor is a single tank wherein anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment are performed (Claim 12), wherein: the single tank includes bubble aerators, jet aerators, or venturi aerators, the bubble aerators, jet aerators or venturi aerators being structured to provide a variable air flowrate; and anaerobic, aerobic, or anoxic processes are initiated by varying the air flowrate (Claim 13).
Houweling is directed to wastewater treatment and to membrane aerated biofilm reactors [0001].
Houweling discloses the method wherein the biological reactor is a single tank (20) wherein anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment are performed (Claim 12) [0029].
Houweling discloses the method wherein: the single tank (20) includes bubble aerators (22), jet aerators, or venturi aerators, the bubble aerators, jet aerators or venturi aerators being structured to provide a variable air flowrate; and anaerobic, aerobic, or anoxic processes are initiated by varying the air flowrate (Claim 13) ([0026]- [0028], [0029], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method for wherein the biological reactor is a single tank wherein anaerobic, aerobic, and anoxic treatment are performed (Claim 12), wherein: the single tank includes bubble aerators, jet aerators, or venturi aerators, the bubble aerators, jet aerators or venturi aerators being structured to provide a variable air flowrate; and anaerobic, aerobic, or anoxic processes are initiated by varying the air flowrate (Claim 13), as taught by Houweling,
because the initial air flow rates can be selected to give desired nitrogen and ammonia removal and because in ordinary operation, nitrification occurs in at least an interior portion of the biofilm under aerobic condition. Further, an outer portion of the biofilm can be anoxic or anaerobic, at all times or at least during some times, to provide denitrification. (See Houweling, [[0029], [0041]]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Magnusson Per et al. (WO 2019145554 A1) herein known as Magnusson.
Regarding Claim 14, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Odegaard discloses the method wherein the biology carriers have a specific gravity of about 0.9-1.2 which overlap the claimed specific gravity of about 1.0 to about 1.5 (Abstract; Col. 3, Lines 50-63).
However, Odegaard is silent to separating the biology carriers from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to settle, and then removing biologically treated water from above the settled biology carriers.
Magnusson is directed to bio-carrier to carry a biofilm in a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) (Abstract).
Magnusson discloses separating the biology carriers (1) from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to settle, and then removing biologically treated water from above the settled biology carriers (Page 17, lines 26-35; Page 18, lines 1-8; Figure 6). Magnusson also discloses discharging the purified liquid at a level above the settled bio-carrier element level, thereby retaining the bio-carrier in the bioreactor. The purified liquid may be extracted by means of pumping, gravity flow, decanting and other established technologies (Page 17, lines 26-35; Page 18, lines 1-8; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method to separate the biology carriers from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to settle, and then removing biologically treated water from above the settled biology carriers as taught by Magnusson, to allow discharging the purified liquid at a level above the settled bio-carrier element level, thereby retaining the bio-carrier in the bioreactor. The purified liquid may be extracted by means of pumping, gravity flow, decanting and other established technologies. (See Magnusson (Page 17, lines 26-35; Page 18, lines 1-8; Figure 6), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Ishida Ssumu et al. (JP 2007307549 A, machine translation) herein known as Ishida.
Regarding Claim 15, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Odegaard discloses the method wherein the biology carriers have a specific gravity of 0.9-1.2 which overlap the claimed specific gravity of about 0.8 to about 1.0 (Abstract; Col. 3, Lines 50-63).
However, Odegaard does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the biology carriers have a specific gravity of about 0.8 to about 1.0; and separating the biology carriers from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to float in an upper portion of the biological reactor, and then removing biologically treated water from below the biology carriers.
Ishida is directed to filtration device that can efficiently purify even raw water containing many impurities (Abstract).
Ishida discloses the method wherein the biology carriers (32) have a specific gravity of 1.0 which anticipate the claimed specific gravity of about 0.8 to about 1.0. and separating the biology carriers from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to float in an upper portion of the biological reactor (30), and then removing biologically treated water from below the biology carriers (Abstract; [0008]- [0009]; [0026], [0036]; [0038]). Ishida also discloses the biological carriers flow smoothly due to the aeration, and the filter bed can be maintained at a high activity while preventing clogging, and there is no need to wash the filter bed [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method wherein the biology carriers have a specific gravity of about 0.8 to about 1.0; and separating the biology carriers from the biologically treated water is performed by permitting the biology carriers to float in an upper portion of the biological reactor, and then removing biologically treated water from below the biology carriers as taught by Ishida, which allows the biological carriers flow smoothly due to the aeration, and the filter bed can be maintained at a high activity while preventing clogging, and there is no need to wash the filter bed (See Ishida [0038], yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, as applied to the claims above, in view of Stensel; H. David et al. (US 20200048131 A1) herein known as Stensel.
Regarding Claim 16, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Odegaard is silent to the method further comprising combining the wastewater with volatile fatty acids prior to treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor.
Stensel is directed to a continuous flow granular/flocculent sludge wastewater process (Abstract).
Stensel discloses the method further comprising combining the wastewater with volatile fatty acids prior to treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor [0007]. Stensel also discloses using volatile fatty acids as an exogenous source of soluble biodegradable to support sufficient phosphorus accumulating organisms’ growth or denitrification rates [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method comprising combining the wastewater with volatile fatty acids prior to treating the wastewater anaerobically, aerobically, and anoxically within the biological reactor as taught by Stensel as an exogenous source of soluble biodegradable to support sufficient phosphorus accumulating organisms’ growth or denitrification rates (See Stensel [[0037]]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odegaard Hallvard (US 5458779 A) herein known as Odegaard, in view of Shin; Hang Sik et al. (US 5254254 A) herein known as Shin.
Regarding Claim 18, Odegaard teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Odegaard discloses the method wherein the biologically treated water remaining with the biology carriers after separation of the biology carriers from a majority of the biologically treated water has flocculant biology or biology which has become detached from carriers. (Col. 1, Lines 51-57; col. 7, Lines 12-15).
However, Odegaard is silent to removing a portion of the flocculant biology or the biology which has become detached from the biologically treated water remaining with the biology carriers prior to reintroducing the biology carriers to the reactor.
Shin is directed to an improvement in a biological method of treating wastewater. More particularly, the present invention relates to a biological method of removing dissolved organic substances, and nitrous and phosphorus materials present in wastewater efficiently in a batch reactor containing porous biomass carriers (Col. 1, Lines 1-15).
Shin discloses removing a portion of the flocculant biology or the biology which has become detached from the biologically treated water remaining with the biology carriers prior to reintroducing the biology carriers to the reactor to remove the sludges in a high concentration (Col. 3, Lines 41; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odegaard ‘s biological waste water treatment method, comprising removing a portion of the flocculant biology or the biology which has become detached from the biologically treated water remaining with the biology carriers prior to reintroducing the biology carriers to the reactor as taught by Shin to remove the sludges in a high concentration (See Shin Col. 3, Lines 41; Fig. 3). yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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 L 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773