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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-22, drawn to modified membrane bioreactor systems, classified in C02F3/1226.
II. Claims 23-42, drawn to modified membrane bioreactor methods, classified in C02F1/283.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions group I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as using adsorbents other than activated carbon.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely to be applicable to another invention.
The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
System/method using granular activated carbon reactivation waste
System/method using powdered activated carbon
The species are independent or distinct because the claimed species have distinct structure. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic to both species.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because one or more of the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Roy Coleman on 03/19/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, species ii, claims 33-42. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-32 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 33-42 are 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.
Regarding claim 33, the limitation “a majority of the PFAS from the flow of wastewater and/or landfill leachate” renders the claim indefinite because the term “majority” does not provide a clear quantifiable indication of how much PFAS is removed.
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.
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(s) 33-38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Desalination 334 (2014) 23–28), in view of Conner et al. (US 2011/0005284A1).
Regarding claim 33-35, Yu teaches membrane bioreactor (MBR) method for removing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from a flow of wastewater (refer abstract), the method comprising: blending PAC with wastewater and filtering the mixture of PAC and wastewater through a membrane, and outputting a flow of treated wastewater from which PFAS has been removed (refer abstract, fig. 1, section 2, section 3.3). Yu also teaches effect of PAC dosage on removal efficiency of PFAS (refer fig. 5, 6; table 4). Yu also teaches that PFOS could be effectively removed by granular activated carbon (Refer left column on page 24).
Yu does not teach mixing GAC with a flow of mixed liquor from MBR.
Conner teaches a wastewater treatment system/method mixing adsorbent (from a source 229) with wastewater (refer fig. 2). Conner discloses that “Adsorbent material such as granular activated carbon, e.g., suitably pre-wetted to form a slurry of adsorbent material, can be added to the wastewater at various points in the system 200, e.g., from a source 229 of adsorbent material. As shown in FIG. 2, adsorbent material can be introduced at one or more locations 230a, 230b, 230c and/or 230d” (refer [0089]).
Selecting to premix the GAC with mixed liquor from MRB in the method of Yu would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Conner discloses that it is known in the art to introduce/mix GAC at various points in the system. Conner also teaches regenerating the GAC having contaminants adsorbed thereon and recycling regenerated adsorbent material into mixing zone (Refer [0016]-[0019]).
Regarding the predetermined ratio of GAC to biomass, Yu discloses that dosage of activated carbon is a result effective variable for adsorption of PFCs (Refer table 4; paragraph 3.4). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 36-38, modified Yu teaches limitations of claim 33 as set forth above. Conner teaches outputting a waste flow of GAC impregnated biological flocs having PFAS absorbed thereto (Refer line 214). Conner teaches that a waste outlet 218 can also be connected to the return activated sludge line 214 to divert some or all the return activated sludge for disposal, for instance, to control the concentration of the mixed liquor and/or culture (Refer [0080]).
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs increase treatment kinetics thereby reducing the required hydraulic retention time and size of the MBR” is not an active method step but rather a result of GAC contacting the wastewater having biological solids which is taught by Yu and Conner.
Regarding claim 41, modified Yu teaches limitations of claim 33 as set forth above. Conner further teaches that the controller (205) is provided to control components of the system such as wastewater feed pump and suspension system 232 (refer [0102]).
Regarding claim 42, the limitation “the GAC reactivation waste product- impregnated biological flocs enhance membrane filtration” does not recite any active method step but is rather a result mixing of GAC with wastewater which is taught by Yu and Conner.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Desalination 334 (2014) 23–28), in view of Conner et al. (US 2011/0005284A1) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Pinkard et al. (Chemosphere 279 (2021) 130834).
Regarding claim 39, modified Yu teaches limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. Modified Yu does not teach that the waste product is directed to at least one of: a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) process or a plasma gasification subsystem configured to destroy the waste product including the GAC reactivation waste product-impregnated biological flocs having the PFAS adsorbed thereto.
Pinkard teaches destruction of PFAS from PFAS laden waste using supercritical water oxidation (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Yu to use supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) process for destruction of PFAS from waste because Pinkard establishes that supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) process is known in the art for destruction of PFAS from waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-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, 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights