DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 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 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6:
The term “slightly” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how far above the bottom ring would be considered “slightly” above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14, 17 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,434,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 14:
The claims of the patent disclose the fixed film media pod for treating wastewater, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure of a mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material; a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material (see claim 1); at least one float affixed to the generally tubular structure adjacent to the top ring (see claim 5); and at least one weight positioned at or adjacent to a bottom of said generally tubular structure (see claim 4).
Regarding Claim 17:
The claims of the patent disclose the fixed film media pod for aerating wastewater in a tank, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure of a mesh material, the mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material; a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material (polymeric mesh around the interior or exteriors or the top and bottom rings); at least one float affixed to said generally tubular structure adjacent to said top ring; a diffuser affixed to said generally tubular structure, said diffuser adapted to aerate the wastewater in the tank; an air pump connected to said diffuser (see claim 3) so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see claim 1); and a weighted member fastened below said diffuser or connected to said diffuser (see claim 4), said weighted member adapted to maintain said generally tubular structure and said diffuser in a generally vertical orientation (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
The claims of the patent disclose the fixed film media pod of claim 17, said diffuser being affixed to a side of said generally tubular structure (see claim 4).
Claims 1, 7-9, and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,434,988 in view of Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689).
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the patent disclose the wastewater treatment apparatus comprising: a tank; and at least one fixed film media pod positioned in the interior of said tank, said at least one fixed film media pod having openings framed by a material (see claim 1), said at least one fixed film media pod having at least one weight adjacent to a bottom thereof (see claim 4), the at least one weight adapted to maintain a generally vertical orientation of said at least one fixed film media pod in said tank (see claim 1).
The claims of the patent do not explicitly teach the tank having an access opening therein, said tank having an inlet adapted to allow wastewater to enter an interior of said tank, said tank having an outlet adapted to allow an effluent to exit said tank.
Ladouceur teaches a bioreactor tank (liquid containment means 10) (see para. 0027) the tank having an access opening therein (access openings with risers 90 with lids 92) (see para. 0029), said tank having an inlet (inlet 12) adapted to allow wastewater to enter an interior of said tank (see para. 0027, fig. 1), said tank having an outlet (outlet 42) adapted to allow an effluent to exit said tank (see para. 0027, fig. 1).
The patent and Ladouceur are analogous inventions in the art of bioreactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified tank of the claims of the patent with the tank of Ladouceur because it is the simple substitution of one known biofilm reactor tank with another known biofilm reactor tank, obviously resulting in accessibility to the tank interior (see Ladouceur para. 0029) with an expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, each of said at least one fixed film media pod comprising a tubular structure extending vertically in the interior of said tank, the tubular structure being positioned above a bottom of said tank, wherein the tubular structure has an interior mesh (mesh panel) structure extending generally across the interior diameter of the tubular structure (teardrop shape affixed to the interior) (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a diffuser positioned in the interior of said tank, said diffuser adapted to aerate liquid in the interior of said tank (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 8, further comprising: an air pump connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see claim 3).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claims of the patent, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the access opening of said tank is positioned directly above said at least one fixed film media pod (see Ladouceur fig. 1).
Claim 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 19/350,245 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose the wastewater treatment apparatus comprising: a tank having an access opening therein, said tank having an inlet adapted to allow wastewater to enter an interior of said tank, said tank having an outlet adapted to allow an effluent to exit said tank; and at least one fixed film media pod positioned in the interior of said tank, said at least one fixed film media pod having openings framed by a material (see claim 1), said at least one fixed film media pod having at least one weight adjacent to a bottom thereof, the at least one weight adapted to maintain a generally vertical orientation of said at least one fixed film media pod in said tank (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8:
The claims of the copending application disclose the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a diffuser positioned in the interior of said tank, said diffuser adapted to aerate liquid in the interior of said tank (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The claims of the copending application disclose the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 8, further comprising: an air pump connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claims of the copending application disclose the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1.
The claims do not teach the access opening of said tank is positioned directly above said at least one fixed film media pod. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the access opening directly above the media pod (media pod directly below the access opening) because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without changing the function of the device. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within
the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14:
The claims of the copending application disclose the fixed film media pod for treating wastewater, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure (see claim 2) of a mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material (see claim 1); a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material (as top and bottom ring are present they either surround or are surrounded by the mesh)(see claim 5); at least one float affixed to the generally tubular structure adjacent to the top ring (at a top) (see claim 8); and at least one weight positioned at or adjacent to a bottom of said generally tubular structure (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 17:
The claims of the copending application disclose the fixed film media pod for aerating wastewater in a tank, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure of a mesh material (see claims 1 and 3), the mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material (see claim 1); a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material (see claim 5); at least one float affixed to said generally tubular structure adjacent to said top ring (at the top) (see claim 8); a diffuser affixed to said generally tubular structure (see claim 4), said diffuser adapted to aerate the wastewater in the tank (see claim 1); an air pump connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see claim 1); and a weighted member fastened below said diffuser or connected to said diffuser, said weighted member adapted to maintain said generally tubular structure and said diffuser in a generally vertical orientation(see claims 1 and 6).
Regarding Claim 19:
The claims of the copending application disclose the fixed film media pod of claim 17, said diffuser being affixed to a side (exterior) of said generally tubular structure (see claim 4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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(s) 1, 2, 5-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided) in view of Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689).
Regarding Claim 1:
Grabowski teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus comprising: a tank (basin) (see pg. 1, 6th paragraph); and at least one fixed film media pod (floating fixed bed bodies) positioned in the interior of said tank (see pg. 1, Abstract, 6th paragraph), said at least one fixed film media pod having openings framed by a material (material is a net, which has openings) (see pg. 2, 10th paragraph, fig. 1), said at least one fixed film media pod having at least one weight (ballast body 3) adjacent to a bottom thereof (see abstract, pg. 2 16th paragraph, fig. 1), the at least one weight adapted to maintain a generally vertical orientation of said at least one fixed film media pod in said tank (vertical flow fixed bed) (see pg. 2 3rd paragraph).
Grabowski does not explicitly teach said tank having an access opening therein, said tank having an inlet adapted to allow wastewater to enter an interior of said tank, said tank having an outlet adapted to allow an effluent to exit said tank.
Ladouceur teaches a bioreactor tank (liquid containment means 10) (see para. 0027) the tank having an access opening therein (access openings with risers 90 with lids 92) (see para. 0029), said tank having an inlet (inlet 12) adapted to allow wastewater to enter an interior of said tank (see para. 0027, fig. 1), said tank having an outlet (outlet 42) adapted to allow an effluent to exit said tank (see para. 0027, fig. 1).
Grabowski and Ladouceur are analogous inventions in the art of bioreactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified tank of Grabowski with the tank of Ladouceur because it is the simple substitution of one known biofilm reactor tank with another known biofilm reactor tank, obviously resulting in accessibility to the tank interior (see Ladouceur para. 0029) with an expectation of success. Further Grabowski teaches that the ability to remove and install the fixed bodies is beneficial (see Grabowski pg. 1, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Regarding Claim 2:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, the at least one weight comprising: a weighted ring (clamping ring) affixed to the at least one fixed film media pod (see Grabowski pg. 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 2, said at least one fixed film media pod being formed of a mesh material (see Grabowski pg. 2, 8th paragraph).
Grabowski does not teach said at least one fixed film media pod having a top ring and a bottom ring, said mesh material extending over and around or under and around the top ring and the bottom ring. Grabowski further teaches a tension ring, acting as the weight, in the lower area (bottom) (see Grabowski pg. 2, 10th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an additional ring to the bottom and a ring to the top because it is a simple duplication of parts, obviously resulting in the tubes of the device being held together in multiple locations, with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 5.
Grabowski, as modified, does not teach said weighted ring positioned slightly above the bottom ring. However placing the weighted ring of modified Grabowski above the bottom ring is a mere rearrangement or parts. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7:
Grabowski teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, each of said at least one fixed film media pod comprising a tubular structure extending vertically (vertical net tube) in the interior of said tank (see Grabowski pg. 2, 10th paragraph), the tubular structure being positioned above a bottom of said tank (device is in a tank, therefore it is above a bottom).
Grabowski does not teach an interior mesh structure extending generally across the fixed film media pod in the same embodiment as the tubular structure. Grabowski further teaches lattice sheets (mesh structures) (see Grabowski pg. 2, 9th paragraph) and that the fill elements of the vertical tube can be “elements made of art” (see pg. 2, 8th paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified fill elements with the mesh structures (lattice sheets) of Grabowski extending generally across the interior diameter of the tubular structure because it is the sim[le substation of one known fill material with another known fill material, obviously resulting in a fixed film media pod with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 8:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a diffuser (diffuser 336) positioned in the interior of said tank, said diffuser adapted to aerate liquid in the interior of said tank (see Ladouceur, Abstract, para. 0014).
Regarding Claim 9:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 8, further comprising: an air pump (forced air means 50) connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see Ladouceur para. 0031).
Regarding Claim 13:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the access opening of said tank is positioned directly above said at least one fixed film media pod (see Ladouceur fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided) and Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Boutet et al (US 2017/0320761).
Regarding Claim 3:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 2.
Grabowski does not teach said weighted ring comprising a wire or cable formed in a generally circular configuration. Grabowski further teaches that the device can be in a generally circular configuration (see Grabowski fig. 2).
Boutet teaches using cables to connect fixed film media pods (reactors) (see para. 0118).
Grabowski and Boutet are analogous inventions in the art wastewater treatment with fixed film media pods. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the clamping ring of Grabowski with the cable of Boutet because it is the simple substitution of one known clampable material with another known clampable material, known to be suitable in bioreactors, obviously resulting in the ballasting of the fixed film media pod, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to have a circular ring because it is a simple change in shape without changing in the function of the device. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided), Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689) and Boutet et al (US 2017/0320761) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang (USPN 6,394,677).
Regarding Claim 4:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 3.
Grabowski does not explicitly teach the wire or cable having free ends, the free ends being connected together by a tubular member into the generally circular configuration.
Wang teaches a cable (cord 12) having free ends (free ends 121), the free ends being connected together by a tubular member (fixing piece 112) into the generally circular configuration (see col. 2 lines 37-41).
Graboski, as modified, and Wang are analogous inventions in the art of connected cables. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified connecting means of Graboski (as modified) with the tubular member (fixing piece) of Wang because it is the simple substitution of one connecting means with another known connecting means, obviously resulting in the cable being held together in a generally circular configuration around the media pod, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided) and Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of McLaughlin et al (USPN 4,625,801).
Regarding Claim 10:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 9.
Grabowski does not teach a weighted member connected to said diffuser, said weighted member adapted to maintain said at least one fixed film media pod and said diffuser in a generally vertical orientation. Grabowski further teaches that the device is maintained in a vertical orientation (see Grabowski pg. 2, 3rd paragraph).
McLaughlin teaches a diffuser (outflow port 282) connected (connected through the components of the device) to a weighted member (supporting box 268/ ballast) (see col. 11 lines 5-20, col. 17 lines 62-66).
Grabowski, as modified, and McLaughlin are analogous inventions in the art of weighted water treatment devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the weighted member of McLaughlin connected to the diffuser of Grabowski, as modified, because it ensures that the device remains submerged (see McLaughlin col. 17 lines 62-66) and because it is the simple addition of a known weight to a known device, obviously resulting in the diffuser remaining submerged, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 10, said weighted member comprising: a receptacle affixed to or adjacent to a bottom of said diffuser (see McLaughlin col. 11 lines 5-20, fig. 3); and a plurality of weight elements (lead shot) received in said receptacle (see McLaughlin col. 11 lines 5-20, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (De 3534163, English machine translation provided), Ladouceur (US 2009/0272689) and McLaughlin et al (USPN 4,625,801) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stark (US 2016/0122216).
Regarding Claim 12:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the wastewater treatment apparatus of claim 11, wherein said plurality of weight elements being lead shot received in the receptacle (see McLaughlin col. 11 lines 5-20).
The combination does not teach said receptacle is a pipe, said diffuser having a threaded portion at the bottom of said diffuser, the pipe having a coupling threadedly secured to the threaded portion, the pipe being capped at an end opposite the coupling.
Stark teaches a ballast filled receptacle, wherein the receptacle is a pipe (pipe is interpreted as any cylindrical tube) (bottom cap 22) and a diffuser having a threaded bottom portion (threaded vertical bore 28) (see para. 0020), the pipe having a coupling threadedly secured to the threaded potion (see para. 0029), the pipe being capped at an end opposite the coupling (pipe is closed) (see fig. 2).
Grabowski, as modified, and Stark are analogous inventions in the art of wastewater treatment devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the connecting means and receptacle of Graboski, as modified, with the pipe and threaded connections of Stark because it is the simple substitution of one known connecting means and receptacle for a ballast member with another known connecting means and receptacle for a diffuser ballast member, obviously resulting in the weighting of the device with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 14:
Grabowski teaches the fixed film media pod for treating wastewater, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure of a mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material (mesh tube) (see pg. 2, 8th paragraph, fig. 2); at least one float affixed to the generally tubular structure adjacent to the top (buoyancy body in the top); and at least one weight (ballast body 3) positioned at or adjacent to a bottom of said generally tubular structure (see pg.2, 17 paragraph, fig. 2).
Grabowski does not teach a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material.
In an alternative embodiment Grabowski teaches bottom ring (tension ring) surrounding a net tube (mesh material) (see pg. 2, 10th paragraph, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the bottom ring of figure 4 of Grabowski to the embodiment of figure 2 of Grabowski because it is the simple addition of a known ring to a known device, obviously resulting the tension being provided on the fill elements and the shape maintained, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to add second ring of the embodiment of figure 4 or Grabowski to the top of the embodiment of figure 2 of Grabowski because it is the simple addition a known ring to a known device, obviously resulting the tension being provided on the fill elements and the shape maintained, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15:
Grabowski teaches the fixed film media pod of claim 14.
Grabowski does not teach said at least one weight comprising: a weighted ring affixed to the generally tubular structure. Grabowski further teaches that the weight can be a weighted ring (ballast body clamping ring) (see pg. 2, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the weight of embodiment 2 of Grabowski with an additional ring of embodiment 4 of Grabowski because it is the simple substitution of one known with another known ballast, obviously resulting in maintaining the device submerged with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Boutet et al (US 2017/0320761).
Regarding Claim 16:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the fixed film media pod of claim 15.
Grabowski does not teach said weighted ring comprising a wire or cable formed in a generally circular configuration. Grabowski further teaches that the device can be in a generally circular configuration (see Grabowski fig. 2).
Boutet teaches using cables to connect fixed film media pods (reactors) (see para. 0118).
Grabowski and Boutet are analogous inventions in the art wastewater treatment with fixed film media pods. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the clamping ring of Grabowski with the cable of Boutet because it is the simple substitution of one known clampable material with another known clampable material, known to be suitable in bioreactors, obviously resulting in the ballasting of the fixed film media pod, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to have a circular ring because it is a simple change in shape without changing in the function of the device. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski (DE 3534163, English machine translation provided) in view of Boutet et al (US 201/0320761) and McLaughlin et al (USPN 4,625,801).
Regarding Claim 17:
Grabowski teaches the fixed film media pod for aerating wastewater in a tank, the fixed film media pod comprising: a generally tubular structure of a mesh material having openings framed by the mesh material (mesh tube) (see pg. 2, 8th paragraph, fig. 2); at least one float affixed to the generally tubular structure adjacent to the top (buoyancy body in the top); and that the generally tubular structure is maintained in a generally vertical orientation (vertical flow fixed bodies) (see pg. 2, 3rd paragraph).
Grabowski does not teach a top ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material; a bottom ring surrounded by or surrounding the mesh material. Grabowski does not teach a diffuser affixed to said generally tubular structure, said diffuser adapted to aerate the wastewater in the tank; an air pump connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser; a weighted member fastened below said diffuser or connected to said diffuser; the weighted member fastened below said diffuser or connected to said diffuser.
In an alternate embodiment Grabowski teaches bottom ring (tension ring) surrounding a net tube (mesh material) (see pg. 2, 10th paragraph, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the bottom ring of figure 4 of Grabowski to the embodiment of figure 2 of Grabowski because it is the simple addition of a known ring to a known device, obviously resulting the tension being provided on the fill elements and the shape maintained, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to add second ring of the embodiment of figure 4 or Grabowski to the top of the embodiment of figure 2 of Grabowski because it is the simple addition a known ring to a known device, obviously resulting the tension being provided on the fill elements and the shape maintained, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Boutet teaches a generally tubular structure (see figs. 2 and 3) of a mesh material; a diffuser (diffuser 60) affixed to said generally tubular structure, said diffuser adapted to aerate the wastewater in the tank (see fig. 3, para. 0103); and air pump (compressor for supplying air) connected to said diffuser so as to pass air into and through said diffuser (see para. 0103).
Grabowski and Boutet are analogous inventions in the art of fixed film media pods. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the diffuser and air pump of Boutet to the tubular structure of Grabowski because it allows the media pod to be aerobic (see Boutet para. 0002) and for the biofilm growth on the media pod to be controlled (see Boutet para. 0103).
McLaughlin teaches a diffuser (outflow port 282) and a weighted member(supporting box 268/ ballast) connected (connected through the components of the device) to the diffuser (see col. 11 lines 5-20, col. 17 lines 62-66).
Grabowski, as modified, and McLaughlin are analogous inventions in the art of weighted water treatment devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the weighted member of McLaughlin connected to the diffuser of Grabowski, as modified, because it ensures that the device remains submerged (see McLaughlin col. 17 lines 62-66) and because it is the simple addition of a known weight to a known device, obviously resulting in the diffuser remaining submerged, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 18:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the fixed film media pod of claim 17, further comprising: at least one weight (ballast body 3) positioned at or adjacent to a bottom of said generally tubular structure (see Grabowski pg. 2, 16th paragraph, and fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the fixed film media pod of claim 17, said diffuser being affixed to a side (bottom side) of said generally tubular structure (see Boutet fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20:
Grabowski, as modified, teaches the fixed film media pod of claim 17, said weighted member comprising: a receptacle affixed to or adjacent to a bottom of said diffuser (see McLaughlin col. 11 lines 5-20, fig. 3); and a plurality of weight elements (lead shot) received in said receptacle (see McLaughlin col. 11 lines 5-20, fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 12/04/2025