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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 03/19/2026. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Inaba discloses “a temperature range of 10° C to 40 °C for the treated liquid, the temperature of the treated liquid is preferably 10 to 40 °C, more preferably 15 to 35 °C, and most preferably 25 to 30°C”. That is, the lowest temperature disclosed in Inaba is 10 °C”.
However, Inaba discloses wherein the system to be treated is at a temperature of (10–40°C) ([0041]), which is close to the claimed temperature of less than 10 0C , a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, See MPEP § 2144.05.
Applicant argues that Inaba does not disclose the use of a single AHLs signal molecule (C4-HSL) alone.
However, Inaba discloses “intermicrobial information transmission substance is preferably a compound selected from at least one of the following groups: C4-homoserine lactone, C8 -homoserine lactone, C10-homoserine lactone, C12-homoserine lactone, C14-homoserine lactone, 3-oxo-C6-homoserine lactone, and 3-oxo-C12-homoserine lactone” [0013], which encompass the use of a single AHLs signal molecule (C4-HSL alone).
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 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (CN104193091A, machine translation) herein known as Inaba, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding Claim 1, Inaba is directed to a method for treating wastewater containing ammonia- nitrogen [0003].
Inaba discloses a method for improving a biological nitrogen removal effect of a system to be treated in a biological wastewater treatment, comprising: adding an exogenous signal molecule to sewage in the system to be treated, wherein the exogenous signal molecule is L-homoserine lactone (C4-HSL) ([0005], [0035], ([0013], The aforementioned intermicrobial information transmission substance is preferably a compound selected from at least one of the following groups: C4-homoserine lactone, C8- homoserine lactone, C10-homoserine lactone, C12-homoserine lactone, C14-homoserine lactone, 3-oxo-C6-homoserine lactone, and 3-oxo-C12-homoserine lactone)).
Inaba also discloses wherein the system to be treated is at a temperature of (10–40 °C) ([0041]), which is close to the claimed temperature of less than 10 0C , a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3, Inaba discloses the biological wastewater treatment is one or more selected from the group consisting of an activated sludge process, a biofilm process, and an activated sludge-biofilm composite system process ([0005]; [0042]- [0043]; [0045]- [0046]).
Regarding Claim 5, Inaba discloses the activated sludge process is selected from the group consisting of a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) activated sludge process and a continuous-flow activated sludge process ([0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (CN104193091A, machine translation) herein known as Inaba, as applied to the claims above, in view of Feng et al. (CN105923744A Machine Translation), herein known as Feng.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Inaba teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, modified Inaba is silent to wherein the system to be treated in the biological wastewater treatment has a temperature of 5 °C to 7 °C.
Feng is directed to the field of water treatment technology and relates to a method for
rapidly initiating biofilm nitrification by regulating N-acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs) as
signaling molecules [0002].
Feng discloses the method wherein the system to be treated in the biological wastewater treatment has a temperature of (5-30℃) which overlaps the claimed temperature range of (5 °C to 7 °C). ([009], [0027]).
Feng also discloses this method has a good promoting effect under both normal temperature and low temperature start-up and operation conditions [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inaba ‘s method for improving a biological nitrogen removal effect, as taught by Feng, wherein the system to be treated in the biological wastewater treatment has a temperature of 5 °C to 7 °C, as this method has a good promoting effect under both normal temperature and low temperature start-up and operation condition (See Feng, [[0020]]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights