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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on September 5, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202211080104.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the enriched return sludge" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim will be considered to recite "the enrichedand depend from claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 216837333, the passages cited below refer the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action) in view of Chen et al. (CN 102776247, the passages cited below refer the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action).
Per claim 1, Yang et al. disclose a device for influent distribution (abstract, The device for improving MSBR rainy season large water treated, specifically comprising a water inlet distribution pipeline device…) to enhance an MSBR system, comprising an influent distribution device, and an MSBR system connected thereto,
wherein the influent distribution device and the MSBR system are all connected to an external online control platform (page 3, In a preferred embodiment, the MSBR is an improved sequence batch reactor, which is a non-secondary sedimentation tank effect, and can continuously water operation of the sewage treated the online control platform, for controlling the device and instrument,; pp. 4-5, In a preferred embodiment, the online control platform by adjusting the first SBR unit treated in the tank and the second SBR unit 14 operation period, so that it is at the same time to precipitate the water outlet state.);
and the influent distribution device (1) comprises a distribution pipeline and related valves (2) and meters (3, 4) and is configured to distribute a water inflow of the
MSBR system (Fig. 1). Yang et al. do not disclose thickened sludge fermentation, a hydrolysis and fermentation tank, the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with a stirrer therein and configured to stir sludge entering the tank, and the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is externally connected with a feed pump and configured to input sludge in the MSBR system into the tank.
Chen et al. disclose providing a device comprising thickened sludge fermentation in a hydrolysis and fermentation tank (abstract, …(1) the kitchen garbage, the concentrated sludge, adding hydrolyzing and fermenting in the anaerobic tank to the anaerobic fermentation,), the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with a stirrer therein and configured to stir sludge entering the tank ([0018] the step (I), the anaerobic ferment temperature is 10 to 65 degrees centigrade, stirring speed is 60-250rpm, using Ca (OH) 2 controlling the fermenting pH value is 5-12, fermentation time is 2 to 5 days, preferably, the fermentation temperature is 25 degrees centigrade, the pH of the fermentation is 7, and the fermentation time is 4 days.) in order to, for example, improve the acid content of the material treated ([0001] This invention belongs to the technical field of environment protection, referring to a method for improving intermittent fermenting acid liquid in acid content.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the device of Yang et al. such that it comprises thickened sludge fermentation, a hydrolysis and fermentation tank, the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with a stirrer therein and configured to stir sludge entering the tank in order to, for example, improve the acid content of the material treated.
Regarding the hydrolysis and fermentation tank being externally connected with a feed pump and configured to input sludge in the MSBR system into the tank, it is submitted that it would have readily obvious to provide a feed pump externally of the hydrolysis and fermentation tank configured to input sludge in the MSBR system into the tank in order to, for example, automatically add the sludge to the tank to facilitate subsequent treatment of the sludge.
Per claim 2, Yang et al. disclose wherein the influent distribution device
comprises:
three pipelines, a middle part of each pipeline being provided with
an electromagnetic flowmeter (3; page 3, 3, electromagnetic flow meter; Fig. 1);
electric ball valves (2; page 3, 2, electric ball valve; Fig. 1), each mounted at a water inlet at a front end of the electromagnetic flowmeter (Fig. 1); and
sludge concentration meters I (4; page 3, 4, sludge concentration meter; Fig. 1).
Per claim 3, Yang et al. disclose wherein the MSBR system comprises an
anaerobic unit (10; page 3, 10, anaerobic unit; Fig. 1), an aerobic unit (13; page 3, 13, aerobic unit; Fig. 1), a first SBR unit (6; page 3, 6, first SBR; Fig. 1) and a second SBR unit (14; page 3, 14, second SBR; Fig. 1); a bottom of the anaerobic unit is provided with a water inlet (Fig. 1), the water inlet being connected to a middle pipeline of the influent distribution device (Fig. 1); and a bottom of the aerobic unit is also provided with a water inlet (Fig. 1), the water inlet being connected to two side pipelines of the influent distribution device (Fig. 1).
Per claim 4, wherein the sludge concentration meters I are respectively arranged inside the first SBR unit and the second SBR unit (Fig. 1), and the first SBR unit and the second SBR unit are respectively connected with a sludge return pump (5; page 3, 5, sludge reflux pump; Fig. 1).
Per claim 5, Yang et al. disclose wherein the MSBR system further
comprises a sludge-water separation unit (9, page 3, 9. sludge concentrating unit; page 5, the sludge after sedimentation is transmitted to the sludge concentrating unit 9 to concentrate…and the concentrated sludge is transmitted to the anoxic unit 8 further treated through the pipeline to the anaerobic unit 10, at the same time, the sludge concentrating unit 9 the concentrated supernatant is transmitted to the aerobic unit 13 to continue the reaction through the pipeline.; Fig. 9), a pre-anoxic unit (8, page 3, 8, pre-anoxic unit;), an anaerobic unit (10; page 3, 10, anaerobic unit; Fig. 1), a first anoxic unit (11; page 3, 11, first anoxic unit; Fig. 1) and a second anoxic unit (12; page 3, 12, first anoxic unit; Fig. 1) that are sequentially connected (Fig. 1); the
second anoxic unit is connected to the aerobic unit (Fig. 1); and the first SBR unit, the
second SBR unit and the sludge-water separation unit are connected through the
sludge return pump (Fig. 1), and a first anoxic/aerobic unit (7, page 3, 7, first lack/aerobic unit) and a second anoxic/aerobic unit (15, page 3, 15, second lack/aerobic unit) are connected to the aerobic unit (Fig. 1).
Per claim 6, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein a shell of the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with an opening of a sludge concentration meter II, an opening of an ORP meter, an opening of a pH meter, an opening of a thermometer and an opening of a liquid level meter, and the openings are
respectively provided with the corresponding meters therein.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to provide the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., such that it includes wherein a shell of the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with an opening of a sludge concentration meter II, an opening of an ORP meter, an opening of a pH meter, an opening of a thermometer and an opening of a liquid level meter, and the openings are respectively provided with the corresponding meters therein in order to, for example, monitor operational parameters effecting the processes occurring within the hydrolysis and fermentation tank, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result.
Per claim 9, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein an upper end of a shell of the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with an overflow port, and a lower end of the shell is provided with a drain port configured to discharge digested and stabilized sludge.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., such that it comprises wherein an upper end of a shell of the hydrolysis and fermentation tank is provided with an overflow port, and a lower end of the shell is provided with a drain port configured to discharge digested and stabilized sludge in order to, for example, facilitate drainage of liquids via the overflow port and recycle or discharge for disposal sludge via the drain port, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result.
Per claim 10, Yang et al. as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein the MSBR system is connected to the hydrolysis and fermentation tank through a pipe duct.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., such that it comprises wherein the MSBR system is connected to the hydrolysis and fermentation tank through a pipe duct in order to, for example, transport sludge from the hydrolysis and fermentation tank to the MSBR system.
Per claim 11, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein sludge is enriched through the pre-anoxic unit.
It is submitted that the recitation is one of intended use, a result to be obtained and/or a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 12, which is considered to depend from claim 11, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein part of the enriched
It is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the device such that wherein part of the enriched sludge enters the hydrolysis and fermentation tank through the feed pump, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired.
Per claim 13, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein the sludge entering the hydrolysis and fermentation tank stays for 1 to 3 days.
It is submitted that the recitation is one of intended use, a result to be obtained and/or a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 14, Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al., do not disclose wherein the sludge-water separation unit, the pre-anoxic unit and the hydrolysis and fermentation tank are usable in combination with other activated sludge processes.
It is submitted that the recitation is one of intended use, a result to be obtained and/or a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the device of Yang et al., as modified by Chen et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While claim 5 is not patentable for the reasons provided above, in the examiner’s opinion, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the device further comprising operational elements having the positioning and function as recited in claims 7-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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. 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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779