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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-20 are pending:
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The NPL document by Korea Water and Wastewater Works Associated in IDS filed 11/14/2024 and 04/10/2025 has not been considered as to the merits because a translation has not been provided in order to fully evaluate the reference by the Examiner and therefore does not comply.
Response to Amendments
Arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been entered. Amendments to the claims do not overcome double patenting rejections and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 03/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pg. 5 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-14 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US Patent No. 12,103,877. The Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered for the following reasons.
Page 9 of the Office Action contains a chart with a column having a title "Claims of USPN 12,103,877". The first row of that column allegedly lists claims 1 and 8 of USPN 12,103,877. This listing is incorrect in that neither claim 1 nor claim 8 of UPSN 12,103,877 actually read as presented in the Office Action. Among other things, no claim of USPN 12,103,877 recites a step of discontinuing oxygen supplied to the biofilm through a supporting membrane for a period of time of between 3 and 6 hours.
Page 9 of the Office Action alleges that the claims of USPN 12,103,877 read on the instant claims. That is not correct, at least because the claims of USPN 12,103,877 do not recite a step of discontinuing oxygen supplied to the biofilm through a supporting membrane for a period of time of between 3 and 6 hours. Page 3 of the Office Action merely alleges that "the amended claims are obvious over the patent claims." The Applicant submits that the Office Action does not construe the claims of the reference patent pursuant to MPEP 840 II. B.1. The Office Action also does not provide an obviousness analysis pursuant to 804 MPEP II. B.3. Accordingly, the Office Action fails to provide a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting.
This argument is not persuasive because the amended claims are obvious over the patent claims therefore the Double patenting rejection is maintained.
On pgs. 5-10 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-14 were rejected as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,854,843 to Pehrson et al. ("Pehrson") in view of US Publication No. 2006/0096918 to Semmens ("Semmens"). The Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered for the following reasons.
Pehrson describes a process wherein a biofilm is grown on a fixed-film media 14. Various media are described in C5/L3-17. None of the media are capable of membrane aeration. Instead, oxygen is supplied to the biofilm by aerating the bulk water around the biofilm. The media is provided in a CRVM 12, which has a mixer 16 to control mixing and/or aeration (C12/L46-48).
Referring to Pehrson C3/L4-19, the method involves a sensor that is capable of indicating the presence of a biological predator. When a pre-determined undesirable level of a predator is detected in a controlled-reaction-volume module (CRVM), steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the predator in that module.
Worms are killed by reducing the dissolved oxygen content in media 14 to levels below that supporting worm populations for a controlled time frame (C13/L48-51). This is accomplished by stopping the mixers 16 to create a low to no dissolved oxygen content in a CRVM 12 (C15/L10-13).
Referring to C15/L39-49. In an example of a "worm cure mode", mixing is stopped in a CRVM 12. Once the dissolved oxygen content becomes "non-detect", an 18-hour timer is started. The timer also re-initiates the worm cure mode in 12 days "to capture the inactivation of the reproductive life cycle of the undesired organism." Between the worm cure modes, each CRVM is aerobic.
Page 13 of the Office Action alleges that Pehrson is open to the biofilm being supported on any media that facilitates biological growth (C/L43-46). Applicant submits that while Pehrson describes many forms of media, no media in Pehrson transfers oxygen to the inside of a biofilm as in Semmens. In contrast, all biofilms in Pehrson are supplied oxygen from the bulk water around them through the mixers 16 which are used for both mixing and aeration.
Page 6 of the Office Action states that, in the alleged combination, the biofilm of Pehrson is modified to be a membrane aerated biofilm used in the process of Pehrson, which would be motivated by Semmens paragraphs 10 and 11. Applicant submits that paragraphs 10 and 11 of Semmens refer to the efficiency of a biofilm in filtration, whereas the biofilm in Pehrson does not perform any filtration. Further, in the context of filtration, Semmens paragraph 83 teaches that the growth of protozoans is beneficial. Accordingly, Semmens provides no motivation for a combination.
Further, merely modifying Pehrson by including a membrane aerated biofilm would result in a biofilm that is provided with air both on the inside from the membrane and from the outside by Pehrson's mixer/aerators 16. This would result in a biofilm that is not like the biofilm in either Semmens or Pehrson. The biofilm would be primarily aerobic and include heterotrophic organisms. Pehrson teaches as C15/L25-28 that worms are beneficial in this type of biofilm. Accordingly, the skilled person would not have implemented a worm cure mode in the alleged combination.
Pages 7 and 13 of the Office Action argues that it would have been obvious to reduce the duration of oxygen discontinuation to 3-6 hours based on the doctrine of result effective variables. Applicant submits that the claimed range of 3-6 hours is not within, overlapping or even near the time of 18 hours described by Pehrson (Pehrson actually teaches a time of 18 hours form when the dissolved oxygen content becomes "non-detect" which would require more than 18 hours of oxygen discontinuation). Pehrson makes no suggestion that any time period of less than 18 hours will be effective to reduce the worms to an acceptable level. Accordingly, the skilled person has no reason to expect that a time period of 3-6 hours will be more efficient, since failing to "cure" the worm problem to an acceptable level would not satisfy the goal in Pehrson.
As described in paragraphs [0014] and [0015], the present application describes two processes. In one process, air is stopped for 3-6 hours pre-emptively to inhibit growth in a population of worms before there is a decline in effluent quality. In the second process, air is stopped for a much longer period of time, 24-48 hours or more, reactively after an infestation of worms is noticed.
The present claims are directed at the pre-emptive method. In contrast, as discussed above, Pehrson's method involves a sensor to detect a pre-determined undesirable level of a predator before implementing the worm cure mode. Thus, Pehrson teaches only a reactive method. Pehrson suggests a time period of over 18 hours. In an experimental example described at paragraph [0018] of the present application, a time period of 48 hours was required to reactively cure a red worm bloom event. The evidence on record suggests that experimentation within the teachings of Pehrson would lead the skilled person towards a longer time period, not a shorter one.
For the reasons above, Applicant submits that claim 1, and its dependent claims, are not obvious. Additional comments regarding some of the dependent claims are given below.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant submits that Pehrson C15/L23-33 teaches that worms are beneficial for fixed film media in heterotrophic applications and potentially adverse to nitrifying organisms. Having mixers, which also supply oxygen, as in Pehrson in combination with a membrane aerated biofilm produces a biofilm that is oxygenated both from the inner surface and the outer surface of the biofilm. Applicant submits that such a biofilm is not present in the embodiment of the worm cure mode. Further, it would be unclear whether such a biofilm would be more populated by heterotrophic or nitrifying organisms. The skilled person would expect, however, that such a doubly aerated biofilm would encourage the growth of worms, which is undesirable.
Regarding claim 4, the reference to a sequencing batch reactor in Pehrson is not related to implementation of the worm cure mode. There is certainly no disclosure that a worm cure mode would, if implemented, be done while the flow of water into a sequencing batch reactor is stopped. Stopping the flow of water into a sequencing batch reactor causes the tank to be drained, whereas in the only embodiment the worm cure mode is implemented with the tank full of water.
Regarding claim 9, each worm cure mode in Pehrson is a two step process. After the first period without air, the worm cure mode is re-initiated after 12 days "to capture the inactivation of the reproductive life cycle of the undesired organism." The re-initiation is done once, not every 12 days. There is no teaching in the art that the inactivation of the reproductive life cycle of worms occurs in anything but 12 days, and not once every seven days.
Claim 10, read in combination with claim 1, describes a method wherein steps of discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm for a first period of 3-6 hours are combined with steps of discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane for a second period of time of at least 24 hours. The Office Action does not discuss this combination of two different time periods in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant submits that, in the context of Pehrson C7/L46 to C9/L11 and Figure 1, item 34 at C8/L65 would have been understood by the skilled person to be a typographical error intended to be 42. In any event, there is no statement that chlorine is added specifically after the second period of time as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Pehrson C15/L48-49 states that the process in Pehrson is done in a way that minimizes the number of CRVMs that are off aerobic line. Accordingly, the skilled person understands that, expect during the worm cure more, the water in the CRVM is aerobic. The water is therefore not maintained under anoxic conditions.
Regarding claim 14, the Office Action argues on page 7 that it would have been obvious for the skilled person to select a shorter time period than in Pehrson. On page 16 the Office Action argues that it would have been obvious for the skilled person to select a
shorter time period than in Pehrson. Both cannot be correct. In any event, 48 hours is not close to 18 hours. Further, claim 14 requires a combination of both first time periods of 3-6 hours and second time periods of at least 48 hours. The Office Action does not discuss this combination.
This argument is not persuasive because there is no evidence that the membrane aerated biofilm would be inoperable in Pehrson. First, the biofilm of Pehrson is modified by Semmens to be structurally a membrane aerated biofilm into the process of Pehrson which is clear in the Office Action that the membrane aerated biofilm is not direct replacement of the biofilm of Pehrson. It would have been obvious to integrate this membrane aerated biofilm structure into the process Pehrson because membrane aerated biofilms are beneficially designed to be energy efficient as these membrane performance require reduced energy costs compared to membrane filtration (Semmens, see ¶10-¶11). Secondly, the CVRM (biofilm) of Pehrson and the membrane aerated biofilm of Semmens, both, serve to enhance biological wastewater treatment and the process of Pehrson allows for flexibility and adaptability in order to increase biological effectiveness, provide enhanced biology and control of biology (Pehrson, see C14/L50-60 and C16/L1-25). Furthermore, the process conditions can be varied in Pehrson (e.g. operating in an aerobic environment) and the compositions of the biofilms would be similar in both systems which is suitable for the biofilm of Semmens to thrive and successfully operate in the process of Pehrson; therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success by integrating the membrane aerated biofilm in the process of Pehrson.
Applicant further argues that Office Action does not explain why it would have been obvious to decrease the time taught by Pehrson rather than increase it, said argument is not persuasive because time for discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is merely a result-effective variable (Pehrson, controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity, see C15/L35-46) as a one of ordinary skill in the art understands that worm survival is time-dependent on low-oxygen conditions and a shorter/decreased time, including 3-6 hours, would likely result in increased efficiency. Although Pehrson teaches performing the method for a period of time of about 18 hours (see C15/L43), the claimed time period of 3-6 hours is obvious over the prior art because time among other factors such as temperature, pH and DO levels, can be adjusted to optimize the process and achieve a desired worm outcome. Applicant has not shown any new or unexpected results nor do the claims require a particular method/process step that is beyond simply reducing oxygen exposure time therefore the rejection is maintained.
Hence, it would have been obvious to select a shorter period of time, including a period of time in the range of 3-6 hours, because the time is a result effective variable and the system of Pehrson allows for precise management of biological growth, oxygen levels and removal of specific containments, therefore it would have been obvious to select 3-6 hours in order to optimize the bacterial diversity within the system, adapt to different wastewater and improve treatment efficiency during routine experimentation.
While Pehrson does not particularly limit when the chlorine is added however it would have been obvious to add chlorine in the treatment process of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, at any time period including a second time period because disinfection removes disease-causing organisms from the wastewater is period at the final stage (Pehrson, see C8/L65-C9/L5).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not discuss two different time periods, it can be implied from Pehrson there is more than one time period for controlling the worm population (see C3/L5-15 and C15/L40-45); hence it would have been obvious to modify the time period for discontinuing the air supply to the biofilm through the supporting membrane during a second time period membrane and discontinuing a supply of air spargers in the tank during a second time period with an expectation of success.
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 1, 3-4 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,877. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims read on the instant claims.
Claims of Instant Application 18/495,373
Claims of USPN 12,103,877
1. A method for controlling a population of worms in a membrane aerated biofilm in a tank, the method comprising supplying oxygen to the biofilm though a supporting membrane and discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane for a period of time of between 3 and 6 hours.
1. A method for controlling the population of worms in a membrane aerated biofilm in a tank wherein operation of the membrane aerated biofilm comprises supplying oxygen to the biofilm through a supporting membrane and suppling air periodically to agitate the supporting membrane, the method comprising discontinuing the oxygen supplied to the biofilm through the supporting membrane and discontinuing the air supplied to agitate the supporting membrane for a period of time effective to kill at least some of the worms growing in the biofilm.
8. A method for controlling the population of worms in a membrane aerated biofilm comprising discontinuing oxygen supplied to the biofilm through a supporting membrane for a period of time of between 3 and 6 hours.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the period of time.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein discontinuing the air supplied to agitate the membranes comprises discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank below the supporting membrane.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a flow of water into the tank during the period of time.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a flow of water into the tank during the period of time.
9. The method of claim 1 performed at least once every 14 days.
9. The method of claim 8 performed at least once per week.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range partially overlaps the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315
F.3d 1325,1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane for a period of time of at least 24 hours after detecting an infestation of worms.
1. A method for controlling the population of worms in a membrane aerated biofilm in a tank wherein operation of the membrane aerated biofilm comprises supplying oxygen to the biofilm through a supporting membrane and suppling air periodically to agitate the supporting membrane, the method comprising discontinuing the oxygen supplied to the biofilm through the supporting membrane and discontinuing the air supplied to agitate the supporting membrane for a period of time effective to kill at least some of the worms growing in the biofilm.
10. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 wherein the period of time is at least 24 hours.
11. The method of claim 1 further comprising a step of adding chlorine to the tank after the period of time.
11. The method of claim 1 further comprising a step of adding a disinfectant to the tank after the period of time.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions.
13. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water contains suspended growth.
13. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water contains suspended growth.
14. The method of claim 10 wherein the period of time is at least 48 hours.
14. The method of claim 1 wherein the period of time is at least 48 hours.
15. (New) The method of claim 10 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the second period of time.
This feature is obvious in light of the patent claims.
16. (New) The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions.
17. The method of claim 10 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions.
18. The method of claim 17 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the second period of time.
This feature is obvious in light of the patent claims.
19. The method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the first period of time, discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane for a second period of time of at least 24 hours after detecting an infestation of the worms, and discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the second period of time.
1. A method for controlling the population of worms in a membrane aerated biofilm in a tank wherein operation of the membrane aerated biofilm comprises supplying oxygen to the biofilm through a supporting membrane and suppling air periodically to agitate the supporting membrane, the method comprising discontinuing the oxygen supplied to the biofilm through the supporting membrane and discontinuing the air supplied to agitate the supporting membrane for a period of time effective to kill at least some of the worms growing in the biofilm.
10. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 wherein the period of time is at least 24 hours.
20. The method of claim 19 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pehrson et al. (US 7,854,843 B2) in view of Semmens (US 2006/0096918 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pehrson teaches a method for inhibiting controlling a population of worms (a control of a biological-growth predator such as, for example a worm) …in a tank (a biological reactor 10, see Fig. 1-4), the method comprising: supplying oxygen to the biofilm though a biofilm (each CRVM 14 contains mixing devices 16 for controlling mixing and/or aeration, see C13/L60-67; mixing device can include a combination bubble generators such as intermittent bubble generators and other bubble generators, see C5/L45-55; aeration mechanism such as a bubble generator, see C5/L55-65) and discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the biofilm for a period of time (at least one controller may be capable of facilitating a control of a biological-growth predator such as, for example a worm; reducing the dissolved oxygen level in the media 14 to levels below that supporting worm populations and doing so for a controlled time frame to capture the inactivation of the reproductive life cycle of the undesired organism; CRVM 12 may be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16, where mixing devices 16 provide the function of controlling the mixing and/or aeration within a CRVM 12 and may be air mixers, see C2/L64-66, C12/L46-48, C13/L48-51 and C15/L10-46).
Pehrson further teach the method is performed for a period of time of about 18 hours (see C15/L43) and the discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is a result-effective variable (Pehrson, controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity, see C15/L35-46).
Pehrson does not explicitly teach that the biofilm is a membrane aerated biofilm and operating at a period of time between 3-6 hours at least once every 14 days.
Semmens teaches a membrane aerated biofilm where there a supply of oxygen to the biofilm (membrane-aerated biofilm filters (biofilters), the biofilm is supported by gas permeable membranes that can provide for aeration, see ¶8), including a supply of oxygen to the biofilm which is oxygen added to water outside of the biofilm (wastewater is aerated, the dissolved oxygen may enter the biofilm from the wastewater, see ¶64) in the same manner as the supply of oxygen to the biofilm in the method of Pehrson (Pehrson, see C14/L62-64 and C12/L44-48: mixing devices 16 may be positioned at any one of below the media 14, above the media 14, or any combination of the proceeding, to achieve diffused aeration and surface mechanical aeration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the biofilm of Pehrson to be a membrane aerated biofilm as taught by Semmens by utilizing the membranes of Semmens as the Pehrson media 14 because the Semmens membrane-aeration enhances cultivation of the biofilm and improves wastewater treatment performance (Semmens, see ¶8, ¶10 and ¶82), and Pehrson is open to the aerated biofilm being supported on any media that facilitates a biological growth (Pehrson, see C11/L43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the duration of the oxygen supply discontinuation between 3-6 hours at least once every 14 days of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to control the population of worms and optimize basin utilization and bacterial diversity.
Regarding claim 3, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers (Pehrson, the at least one mixer may include mechanical mixers such as a bubble generator; CRVM 12 may be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16, where mixing devices 16 provide the function of controlling the mixing and/or aeration within a CRVM 12 and may be air mixers, see C5/L43-46, C12/L46-48 and C15/L10-13) in the tank during the period of time (Pehrson, i.e. a biological reactor 10).
Regarding claim 4, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a flow of water (Pehrson, the bioreactor 10 may be a sequencing batch reactor, and hence the flow of water into the tank operates in batches therefore inherently requires discontinuing a flow of water into the tank, see C16/L19-20) into the tank during the period of time (Pehrson, i.e. a biological reactor 10).
Regarding claim 9, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 is performed after 12 days (Pehrson, see C15/L44); however, Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, does not explicitly performed at least once every 14 days.
Pehrson further teaches that the discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is a result- effective variable (controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity) (see col. 15, lines 35-46).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the operation frequency of the method of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (the “worm cure mode” re-initiation time, see col. 15, lines 10-13 and 35-46) during routine experimentation to control the population of worms and optimize basin utilization and bacterial diversity.
Regarding claim 10, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1.
Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, teaches that the method is performed for a period of time of about 18 hours (Pehrson, see C15/L43), and a step of reducing the population of worms including discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane for a period of time of after detecting an infestation of worms (CRVM 12 may also individually or in groups be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16. This condition may be utilized to force bacteria to use the ammonia converted during aerobic operation into nitrites/nitrates as the electron donor, thereby further reducing nitrogen compounds for more complete treatment, see C9/L9-17); it can be implied from Pehrson there is more than one time period for controlling the worm population (see C3/L5-15 and C15/L40-45); however Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, does not explicitly teach that the method is performed for a second period of time of at least 24 hours.
Pehrson further teaches that the discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is a result-effective variable (Pehrson, controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity, see C15/L35-46).
Pehrson further teaches very low to no DO for extended time frames (Pehrson, see C13/L55-65).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the duration of the oxygen supply discontinuation in a second time period of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to control the population of worms and optimize basin utilization and bacterial diversity; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a second time period to extend the treatment time frame of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to support worm populations and control the DO levels.
Regarding claim 11, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of adding chlorine to the tank after the period of time (Pehrson, treated wastewater can be disinfected by adding chlorine at units 36, 40 and 34, and the recirculation of the contents of 34 back to the biological reactor 10 is a step of adding chlorine to the biological reactor 10, see C8/L65-C9/L1 and Fig. 1); but Pehrson as modified by Semmens does not explicitly teach performing said step during a second time period; while Pehrson does not particularly limit when the chlorine is added however it would have been obvious to add chlorine in the treatment process of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, at any time period including a second time period because disinfection removes disease-causing organisms from the wastewater is period at the final stage (Pehrson, see C8/L65-C9/L5).
Regarding claim 12, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water (Pehrson, submerged fixed film systems, see Fig. 1, C8/L32-33 and C8/L60-62) (Semmens, membranes of membrane supported biofilm submerged in conventional aerated bioreactors, see ¶157) and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions (Pehrson, alternating an environment within the controlled-reaction-volume module among any one of aerobic, anoxic, anaerobic, or any combination of any of the preceding, see C2/L60-64).
Regarding claim 13, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water (Pehrson, submerged fixed film systems, see Fig. 1-3 and C8/L32-33 and C8/L60-62) (Semmens, membranes of membrane supported biofilm submerged in conventional aerated bioreactors, see ¶157) and the water contains suspended growth (Pehrson, IFAS systems combine suspended microorganisms (biological growth) with fixed microorganisms (biological growth), see C8/L57-59).
Regarding claim 14, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 10.
Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, teaches that the method is performed for a period of time of about 18 hours (see Pehrson, col. 15, line 43), however Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, does not explicitly teach that the method is performed for a period of time is at least 48 hours.
Pehrson further teaches that the discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is a result-effective variable (Pehrson, controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity, see C15/L35-46).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the duration of the oxygen supply discontinuation of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to control the population of worms and optimize basin utilization and bacterial diversity.
Regarding claim 15, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 10 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the second period of time (Pehrson, the at least one mixer may include mechanical mixers such as a bubble generator; CRVM 12 may be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16, where mixing devices 16 provide the function of controlling the mixing and/or aeration within a CRVM 12 and may be air mixers, see C5/L43-46, C12/L46-48 and C15/L10-13), but not explicitly teach performing said step during a second time period.
Pehrson further teaches very low to no DO for extended time frames (Pehrson, see C13/L55-65) and it can be implied from Pehrson there is more than one time period for controlling the worm population (see C3/L5-15 and C15/L40-45).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a second time period to extend treatment time frame of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to support worm populations and control the DO levels.
Regarding claim 16, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth (Pehrson, capable of alternating an environment including anoxic, see C2/L60-67).
Regarding claim 17, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 10 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth (Pehrson, capable of alternating an environment including anoxic, see C2/L60-67).
Regarding claim 18, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 17 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank (Pehrson, the at least one mixer may include mechanical mixers such as a bubble generator; CRVM 12 may be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16, where mixing devices 16 provide the function of controlling the mixing and/or aeration within a CRVM 12 and may be air mixers, see C5/L43-46, C12/L46-48 and C15/L10-13) but not explicitly during a second time period…
Pehrson further teaches very low to no DO for extended time frames (Pehrson, see C13/L55-65).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a second time period to extend the treatment time frame of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to support worm populations and control the DO levels.
Regarding claim 19, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 1 further comprising discontinuing a supply of air to spargers in the tank during the first period of time (Pehrson, the at least one mixer may include mechanical mixers such as a bubble generator; CRVM 12 may be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16, where mixing devices 16 provide the function of controlling the mixing and/or aeration within a CRVM 12 and may be air mixers, see C5/L43-46, C12/L46-48 and C15/L10-13), discontinuing the supply of oxygen to the biofilm through the supporting membrane…after detecting an infestation of the worms (CRVM 12 may also individually or in groups be subjected to low to no dissolved oxygen environments by stopping mixing devices 16. This condition may be utilized to force bacteria to use the ammonia converted during aerobic operation into nitrites/nitrates as the electron donor, thereby further reducing nitrogen compounds for more complete treatment, see C9/L9-17); however Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, does not explicitly teach that the method is performed for a second period of time of at least 24 hours for a second period of time and discontinuing spargers for a second period of time.
Pehrson further teaches that the discontinuation of oxygen supply to the biofilm is a result-effective variable (Pehrson, controlling the worm population in a “worm cure mode” and thereby optimizing efficiencies of basin utilization and bacterial diversity, see C15/L35-46); it can be implied from Pehrson there is more than one time period for controlling the worm population (see C3/L5-15 and C15/L40-45).
Pehrson further teaches very low to no DO for extended time frames (Pehrson, see C13/L55-65).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the duration of the oxygen supply discontinuation in a second time period of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to control the population of worms and optimize basin utilization and bacterial diversity; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a second time period to extend the treatment time frame of Pehrson, as modified by Semmens, (Pehrson, the time during which the “worm cure mode” is in effect, see C15/L10-13 and C15/L35-46) during routine experimentation to support worm populations and control the DO levels.
Regarding claim 20, Pehrson and Semmens teach the method of claim 19 wherein the membrane aerated biofilm is immersed in water and the water is maintained under anoxic conditions and wherein the water contains suspended growth (Pehrson, capable of alternating an environment including anoxic, see C2/L60-67).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571) 270-3960. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778