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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/1/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-8, 10, 14, 16-17,and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binot et al. (US 2008/0078721 in IDS) in view of Hosaka et al. (US 2004/0026326 in IDS), Sun (US 2007/0163955), and Bleggi (US 2015/0060358).
Regarding claim 3, 5-6, and 10, Binot teaches a method of treating a wastewater containing solids, the method comprising: providing a pretreatment subsystem (Zone A), a ballasted reactor (2), a ballast feed subsystem (5), and a solids liquid separation subsystem, in the pretreatment subsystem, contacting a wastewater feed from a source of wastewater containing solids with at least one of a coagulant and a flocculant (31 71) to produce a dosed wastewater; thickening (40) the dosed wastewater to produce a sludge and an effluent; treating the effluent with a ballast (5) to produce a treated wastewater; and settling (4) the treated wastewater to produce a solids-lean effluent and a solids-rich ballasted floc (Fig. 3; [0013 ]and [0017]-[0018]). It is submitted that Zone A in Binot would be considered the pretreatment subsystem and the flocculant is added to the wastewater in a reaction tank (20) and section/tank (2) would be considered the ballasted reactor (Fig. 3 and [0017]). Binot further teaches conveying the ballasted floc (5 52) to the ballasted reactor and pretreatment subsystem ([0017]-[0018]).
Binot teaches that the solids from tank/thickener (40) are directed for further treatment ([0017]). Binot fails to teach a filter press downstream and fluidly coupled to an outlet of the pretreatment subsystem configured to receive sludge and produce a pressate and filter cake. Hosaka teaches that after sludge is removed from a bottom of a tank, the sludge can be dewatered via a filter press thereby forming a pressate and a filter cake, wherein the pressate is returned to the beginning of the process/system and functions as a dilution source (34) ([0052]). Including the filter press allows decreased volume of solids from being discharged while increasing the amount of treated water ([0052]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include a filter press as claimed with the pressate being returned to the beginning of the process/system in order to decrease the volume of solids/cake while allowing the pressate to function as a dilution source to the wastewater feed as taught in Hosaka if desired.
Binot teaches a broad range for concentrations of solids present in the wastewater (greater than 0.66 mg/L) and it could be argued that the ranges claimed would not have been anticipated or obvious even though the claimed ranges are encompassed by the range taught in Binot. Sun teaches that ballasted flocculation systems/methods that have coagulant additions, floc formation, ballast treatment, and settling can be used to treat specific suspended solids concentrations of 2000-3000 mg/L (Fig. 2 and [0020]-[0026]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the Binot system specifically for wastewater having TSS values of at least 2,000 mg/L as the steps/elements in the Binot system are known to treat such TSS valued wastewaters and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Binot teaches that ballast is used with the example of sand/microsand as ballast. Binot fails to teach the ballast being magnetite. Bleggi teaches that among the options for ballast, sand and magnetite are commonly used due to the inexpensiveness and greater density ([0007]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use an equivalent ballast of magnetite instead of sand in Binot with a reasonable expectation of success due to magnetite’s the inexpensiveness and high density.
Regarding claims 7-8, Binot teaches adding the coagulant (71) and the flocculant (31) as claimed (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Binot teaches that the flocculant is added to the wastewater in a reaction tank (20) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 16-17, Binot teaches the pretreatment unit having thickener (40) performing the claimed steps as claimed (2) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Binot teaches that an effluent from thickener (40) is conveyed to the ballasted reactor (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binot et al. (US 2008/0078721 in IDS) in view of Hosaka et al. (US 2004/0026326 in IDS), Sun (US 2007/0163955), and Bleggi (US 2015/0060358), and further in view of Lombardi et al. (US 2007/0102359).
Regarding claims 11-12, Binot teaches that the process is used to treat water to remove contaminants and gives specific examples of the contaminants being organic material ([0001])and that the flocs formed include suspended solids ([0014]). While one skilled in the art would understand the broad recitation of contaminants and suspended solids would also include inorganic solids from a variety of wastewater sources, Binot fails to explicitly state said limitations. Lombardi teaches that known wastewater streams/sources having suspended solids would include both organic and inorganic material and that a known source would be produced water (oil and gas wastewater) ([0004] and [0069]). Lombardi further teaches that the wastewater is treated with coagulants and flocculants and allowed to settle in order to remove the inorganic material, wherein said coagulant/flocculation addition and settling steps are identical to some of the Binot steps (Fig. 7 and [0093]). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to apply the Binot process to a variety of wastewater sources, such as oil and gas production wastewater streams, in order to remove the organic and inorganic material via coagulation, flocculation and settling with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the filter press in Hosaka is not a pre-treatment unit as claimed. It is noted that Applicant has defined the pre-treatment unit as including a thickener, which is defined as a means that thickens/ concentrates/separates the solids present from a liquid portion. Hosaka teaches that the liquid stream being present allows for thickening of the solids in elements (16) and (29) prior to passing the thickened sludge to a filter press. As such, Applicant's argument that Hosaka fails to teach the pre-treatment unit and filter press as claimed is erroneous in view of the definitions provided in Applicant’s own specification/claims and the teachings of Hosaka.
It is also noted that sole reliance on how Hosaka defines each element of their system and whether any of the elements would be considered a pretreatment subsystem would be considered piecemeal analysis of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Both Binot and Hosaka teach removing sludge from a bottom of a thickener. Binot teaches that said sludge is removed for further treatment ([0017]) while Hosaka teaches the sludge removed from the thickener is treated further by a filter press in order to decrease the volume of solids being discharged while increasing the amount of treated water. As such, Binot and Hosaka teach further treatment of a sludge portion from a thickener while Hosaka specifically teaches the further treatment being a filter press as claimed and provides explicit motivation as to why a filter press would be desirable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777