Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (CON of 16/680,197, filed 11 November 2019; which is a CIP of 15/788,702, filed 19 October 2017; which is a CON of 15/624,291, filed 15 June 2017; which is a CON of 13/401,732, filed 21 February 2012) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite the term “clarity” as in “clarity of the wastewater” wherein “a first sensor… is configured to periodically measure clarity of the wastewater”. Although no explicit special definition for “clarity” has been provided in the disclosure, p0085 of the Specification indicates that the measure of the clarity of wastewater can be made by sensors including “BOD sensors, COD sensors, conductivity sensors, pH sensors, TSS sensors, turbidity sensors, and combinations thereof”. As such, the Examiner will interpret “clarity” as a measure provided by any one of these indicated sensors.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 22 January 2026 in response to the Office action of 14 August 2025 have been entered. It is noted that the amendments filed 14 November 2025 are considered preliminary amendments and have not been entered.
Claim 22 is cancelled; new Claims 29-31 have been added; Claim 5 remains withdrawn; and Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 23-25, 27, and 28 have been amended. Overall, Claims 2-10 and 23-31 are pending.
In response to these amendments, please note the added Claim Objections of Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 28, 29, and 31 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph rejections of Claims 3, 7, 8, 27, 29, and 31.
With respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 23-28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by GILMOUR et al. (US 2010/0038318 A1) and Claims 9 and 10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILMOUR in view of MITZLAFF et al. (US 2010/0224569 A1), the rejections have been slightly modified in view of the amendments; however, the grounds of rejection remain the same. New Claim 29 is also rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by GILMOUR, and new Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILMOUR in view of DUNBAR (US 2009/0255876 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 23-28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by GILMOUR et al. (US 2010/0038318 A1) and Claims 9 and 10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILMOUR in view of MITZLAFF et al. (US 2010/0224569 A1), Applicant argues that “Gilmour primarily discloses adjusting chemical dosing based on a single monitored variable - flow rate of a drilling fluid. Nothing in Gilmour teaches, discloses or suggests a controller that receives both clarity and flow time-series data and performs varies a variable flow rate of a chemical additive based upon the first and second series of measurements” (pg. 9, par. 2). Further, Applicant argues that the “feedback mechanisms in Gilmour are limited to univariate control responding to turbidity or proportional flow-but not multivariate control using clarity and flow as co-varying parameters” (pg. 9, par. 2). Applicant cites paragraphs 0067-0076 of GILMOUR and states that GILMOUR “explicitly discloses that the system controller and/or the sub- systems are collecting data from a sensor for the determination solely of the flow rate” (pg. 10, par. 1). Finally, Applicant states “While Gilmour discloses that "additional drilling fluid properties may be determined," such as "pH, viscosity, and temperature," there is no indication that these properties may be employed together, much less that they are considered together to make a real-time variation to a flow rate of the chemical additive to maintain clarity of an effluent stream” (pg. 10, par. 1).
Applicant continues, arguing that GILMOUR fails to teach/suggest “the first series of clarity measurements and the second series of flow measurements are measured prior to a wastewater filtration system” or that these measurements are “received by a controller that varies the variable flow rate at which the chemical additive is supplied to the wastewater stream based on the continuous monitoring of the first and second series of measurements to address, in real time, any changes to flow, clarity or both” (pg. 10, par. 2).
The Examiner respectively disagrees.
It is acknowledged that GILMOUR confusingly recites the controller depending on flowrate parameters; however, a careful reading of GILMOUR does show that the prior art teaches the continuous and real-time adjustment of coagulant and polymer dosing based on not only flowrate, but also desired clarity, pH, etc., i.e., not “a single monitored variable” as argued by Applicant but a plurality of parameters. While such a disclosure is not found in any one citation of GILMOUR, when considered as a whole, the prior art does in fact anticipate the claimed invention.
As noted in p0049, the “system controller 603 may receive input from one or more sensors, such as coagulant tank sensors, …polymer injection sensors, polymer tank sensors” (emphasis added) in addition to flow sensors and pH sensors disposed in the flow line 609. In response to these inputs, the acid system 604, coagulant system 606, and polymer system 607 are controlled such that the pH is regulated in the fluids (p0050) by varied acid addition rate (p0051), the rate of addition of coagulant into flow line 609 is controlled (p0056), and a desired polymer dosage is achieved based further on the fluid flow rate through the flow line 609 (p0058). While GILMOUR discloses that the system continuously monitors the drilling fluid flow rate and adjusts the coagulant and polymer injection rates accordingly (p0071), GILMOUR further indicates that this monitoring of the drilling fluid flow rates also takes into account other drilling parameters and sub-systems, including pH, and accordingly adjusts the volumes of coagulant and/or polymer addition based on these other drilling parameters and sub-systems (p0071):
“Thus, the volume of coagulant and polymer injection may continuously be adjusted based on changing drilling fluid flow rates. Furthermore, sensors along the flow line may monitor one or more other drilling parameters or sub-systems, such as a pH, or water system, and adjust the volumes of coagulant and/or polymer based on the other drilling parameters” (p0071, emphases added).
The end result is that as the coagulant and polymer injection rates are continuously monitored/adjusted, the drilling fluid is processed to produce a cleaned fluid (p0072). Thus, even though the prior art is deficient in explicitly teaching the instant controller control scheme in one single recitation, the prior art implicitly teaches such a control scheme throughout the disclosure. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under the cited prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“supplying, by a pump… wastewater stream prior to entering the wastewater filtration system”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“such that the clarity of the effluent stream is maintained…”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a measurement indicative of the clarity of the effluent stream over the interval…”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“that the clarity of the effluent stream is outside of the specified range of values”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“varied proportional to the variable flow rate”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the varying… series of clarity measurements and the second series of flow…”.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“supplying, by a pump… wastewater stream prior to entering the dissolved air flotation tank”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 7, 8, 27, 29, and 31 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 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the varied flow rate” (line 4). Parent Claim 2 has introduced “a variable flow rate”.
Regarding Claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second series of measurements” (line 3). Parent Claim 2 has introduced “a first series of clarity measurements” and “a second series of flow measurements” (emphases added).
Regarding Claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second series of measurements” (line 3). Parent Claim 2 has introduced “a first series of clarity measurements” and “a second series of flow measurements” (emphases added).
Regarding Claim 27, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second series of measurements” (line 3). Parent Claim 2 has introduced “a first series of clarity measurements” and “a second series of flow measurements” (emphases added).
Regarding Claim 29, the term “appropriate” in “a first appropriate flow rate” and “a second appropriate flow rate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” 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. There is no guidance to determine at what level of flow rate would be considered “appropriate”.
Regarding Claim 31, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second sensor” recited in lines 17 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 22-28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by GILMOUR et al. (US 2010/0038318 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, GIILMOUR discloses systems and methods for managing drilling fluid waste (i.e., a method for treating a wastewater stream to produce an effluent stream; p0003); the disclosed method relates to cleaning drilling fluid by injecting a polymer and a coagulant and adjusting the rates of injections (p0012). As best shown in FIG. 6, GILMOUR discloses a system 600 comprising a fluid inlet 601, inline sensor 602, PLC system controller 603, sub-systems 604-607 including an acid system 604, an effluent system 605, a coagulant system 606, and a polymer system 607 (p0044, p0048-0049); sub-system 608 is exemplarily disclosed to be a centrifuge but can be any separation device and includes an outlet B (i.e., providing a wastewater filtration system having an input of the wastewater stream entering the wastewater filtration system and an output of the effluent stream exiting the wastewater filtration system; p0047, p0063-0065). The inline sensor is further disclosed to comprise multiple sensors: a pH sensor 602 and a flow rate sensor 602 that monitor the pH and flow rate, respectively, continuously and in real-time (i.e., a first sensor disposed within the wastewater stream at a first location; a flow meter disposed within the wastewater stream at a second location prior to the wastewater filtration system; p0044; p0071; Claim 9).
During operation, drilling fluid enters inlet 601 and is conveyed along flow line 609; inline sensors 602 determine in real-time properties of the drilling fluid, i.e., pH and flow rates; these sensors 602 are tied to the PLC system controller 603 (i.e., measuring… clarity of the wastewater stream periodically over an interval of time to produce a first series of clarity measurements over the interval of time; measuring… flow of the wastewater stream periodically over the interval of time to produce a second series of flow measurements over the interval of time; p0044). In response to these inputs, i.e., pH and flow rate measurements (see p0049), the system controller 603 controls one or more outputs, i.e., components of the acid system 604, coagulant system 606, and polymer system 607 (i.e., receiving, by a controller, the first series of clarity measurements output by the first sensor, and the second series of flow measurements output by the second sensor; p0047, p0049). Each of these sub-systems controls a precise amount of acid (604), coagulant (606), and polymer (607) to inject into the flow line 609 via metered pumps with variable frequency drives (i.e., supplying by a pump, a chemical additive to the wastewater stream at a variable flow rate prior to the wastewater filtration system, such that the chemical additive is mixed with the wastewater stream prior [to] entering the wastewater filtration system; p0050, p0055-0058). GILMOUR further discloses that each sub-system injection dosage is continuously controlled (p0071) such that the concentration of acid, coagulant, or polymer remains at a desired level or within a desired range in the flow line 609 (e.g., p0056, p0058, i.e., varying, by the controller, the variable flow rate at which the chemical additive is supplied to the wastewater stream based on a continuous monitoring of the first series of clarity measurements generated by the first sensor, and the second series of flow measurements generated by the second sensor).
[AltContent: textbox (Inlet (input))][AltContent: textbox (Inline sensors
(first sensor; flow meter) )][AltContent: textbox (PLC system controller
(controller))][AltContent: textbox (Separation device
(wastewater filtration system))][AltContent: textbox (Flow line)][AltContent: textbox (Coagulant system)][AltContent: textbox (Polymer system)][AltContent: textbox (Outlet (output))][AltContent: textbox (Acid system)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The recited limitations “such that the controller is able to address, in real time, (a) changes in the clarity of the wastewater that are not accompanied by a corresponding change in the flow of the wastewater to mitigate underdosing, (b) changes in the flow of the wastewater that are not accompanied by a corresponding change in the clarity of the wastewater to mitigate overdosing, and (c) changes m the clarity of the wastewater that are accompanied by a corresponding change in the flow of the wastewater” and “wherein by controlling the variable flow rate at which the chemical additive is continuously supplied to the wastewater stream based on the continuous monitoring of the first series of clarity measurements and the second series of flow measurements in real-time prior to the wastewater filtration system, the controller is able to maintain clarity of the effluent stream exiting the wastewater filtration system within a specified range of values” are implicitly disclosed by GILMOUR. As noted in p0049, the “system controller 603 may receive input from one or more sensors, such as coagulant tank sensors, …polymer injection sensors, polymer tank sensors” in addition to flow sensors and pH sensors disposed in the flow line 609. In response to these inputs, the acid system 604, coagulant system 606, and polymer system 607 are controlled such that the pH is regulated in the fluids (p0050) by varied acid addition rate (p0051), the rate of addition of coagulant into flow line 609 is controlled (p0056), and a desired polymer dosage is achieved based further on the fluid flow rate through the flow line 609 (p0058). While GILMOUR discloses that the system continuously monitors the drilling fluid flow rate and adjusts the coagulant and polymer injection rates accordingly (p0071), GILMOUR further indicates that this monitoring of the drilling fluid flow rates also takes into account other drilling parameters and sub-systems, including pH, and accordingly adjusts the volumes of coagulant and/or polymer addition based on these other drilling parameters and sub-systems (p0071). The end result is that as the coagulant and polymer injection rates are continuously monitored/adjusted, the drilling fluid is processed to produce a cleaned fluid (p0072). Even further, GILMOUR cautions against overdosing and underdosing:
“Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that failure to adjust coagulant and polymer injection rates based on changes to the drilling fluid, which occur during drilling, may result in dewatering operations that produce fluids that may cause damage to the well. For example, not providing sufficient flocculation to remove drilled solids from the fluid may result in a return of drilled solids to the active mud system that result in drilled solids being pumped back downhole. By pumping drilled solids back downhole, the wellbore may be damaged, and similarly, downhole tools, such as drill bits and monitoring devices may be prone to premature failure. Similarly, by over-treating the drilling fluid, residual coagulant and polymers may be transmitted to the active mud system, thereby causing flocculation of drilled solids within the well. The flocculation of drilled solids within the well may thus result in well failure” (p0075, emphases added).
Thus, even though the prior art is deficient in explicitly teaching the instantly recited limitation, the prior art implicitly discloses the instantly recited limitation. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Regarding Claim 3, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. As noted, GILMOUR discloses the method is performed continuously (p0071) to achieve a desired pH or other clarity target (i.e., varying is performed continually as measurements generated by the first and second sensors are received, by the controller, such that the clarity of the effluent is maintained within the specified range of values by continuously supplying the chemical additive to the wastewater at the varied flow rate; p0068, p0080). Such a method continues to pump polymer or coagulant at a desired flow rate or dosage rate (p0067).
Regarding Claim 4, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR further discloses the system is controlled by a programmable logic controller (i.e., the controller is a programmable logic controller; p0033).
Regarding Claim 6, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR further discloses a pH sensor (i.e., the first sensor is a biological oxygen demand (BOD) sensor, a chemical oxygen demand (COD) sensor, a conductivity sensor, a potential of hydrogen (pH) sensor, a total suspended solids (TSS) sensor, or a turbidity sensor; p0044). It is further noted that GILMOUR discloses treatment by coagulant and polymer to promote coagulation and flocculation; such treatments typically reduce turbidity and suspended solids in solution (p0006).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR discloses the system controller controls the coagulant system 606 via pumps operatively connected to the PLC thereby controlling the dosage pump rate based on the required dosage rate of coagulant and the flow rate of fluids in the system, e.g., the instantaneous flow rate of waste fluid in the dewatering system (i.e., the chemical additive is a coagulant supplied to the wastewater stream based on the first and second series of measurements; p0056). A similar control scheme is present for the polymer system 607 (i.e., the chemical additive is a polymer supplied to the wastewater stream based on the first and second series of measurements; p0057-0058).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR further discloses real time or near real time measurements by the disclosed sensors (p0044) which reads upon the claimed frequencies of measurements of “at least every three minutes” (Claim 23) and “at least every minute” (Claim 24).
Regarding Claim 25, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 23. GILMOUR further discloses that the dewatering system continuously monitors the drilling fluid flow rate and that the coagulant/polymer injection rates are adjusted such that a “preferable dewatering condition” is reached to produce “a cleaned fluid” (p0073-0074). This disclosure reads on the claimed limitation of “initiating a dosing operation in which the rate at which the chemical additive is supplied to the wastewater is incremented at a predetermined frequency until the clarity of the wastewater is determined to be within the specified range of values” wherein the disclosed “cleaned fluid” reads on “the clarity of the wastewater… within a predetermined range” (i.e., cleaned) and the disclosed continuous monitoring and adjusting read on “the rate at which the chemical additive is supplied… is incremented at a predetermined frequency”.
Regarding Claim 26, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 25. GILMOUR further discloses that prior to treatment/dewatering, “initial inputs” including desired dosage rates of polymer and coagulant are provided (i.e., said initiating is performed prior to said receiving and said varying; p0067).
Regarding Claims 27 and 28, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR further discloses the use of flocculant and coagulant polymers (p0037) and premixed polymers (i.e., the chemical additive is one of multiple chemical additives that are supplied to the wastewater stream; p0057). GILMOUR further discloses the dosage/injection rates of flocculant and coagulant polymers are independently determined by their respective systems, i.e., polymer system 607 (p0057-p0061) and coagulant system 606 (i.e., rates at which the multiple chemical additives are supplied to the wastewater stream are independently varied based on the first and second series of measurements; p0056-0057). Even further GILMOUR discloses that the coagulant injection system and the polymer injection system may be optimized relative to each other such that the overall system controller can provide for an optimized dewatering system (i.e., a second rate at which a second one of the multiple chemical additives is supplied to the wastewater stream is varied proportional to the rate at which the chemical additive is supplied to the wastewater stream; p0086).
Regarding Claim 29, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR further discloses the use of flocculant and coagulant polymers (p0037) and premixed polymers (p0057). GILMOUR further discloses the dosage/injection rates of flocculant and coagulant polymers are independently determined by their respective systems, i.e., polymer system 607 (p0057-p0061) and coagulant system 606 (p0056-0057), each with their own metering/varied pumps with variable frequency drives (i.e., the chemical additive comprises (a) a coagulant supplied to the wastewater stream, by a coagulant pump, at a first variable flow rate, and (b) a polymer supplied to the wastewater stream, by a polymer pump, at a second variable flow rate). Even further GILMOUR discloses that the coagulant injection system and the polymer injection system may be optimized relative to each other such that the overall system controller can provide for an optimized dewatering system (i.e., the varying, by the controller, based on the continuous monitoring of the first series of clarity measurements and second series of flow measurements comprises a first appropriate flow rate of the coagulant and a second appropriate flow rate of the polymer to be supplied to the wastewater stream to achieve or maintain the clarity of the effluent stream within the specified range of values; p0086).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILMOUR et al. (US 2010/0038318 A1) in view of MITZLAFF et al. (US 2010/0224569 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. GILMOUR is deficient in explicitly disclosing receiving, by the controller, a third series of measurements output by a third sensor that is disposed in the effluent and is configured to periodically measure clarity of the effluent over time.
MITZLAFF discloses a system for treating wastewater to produce an effluent stream with an acceptable turbidity range (p0015). The system utilizes the supplying of a plurality of chemical additives (p0017) and a turbidity meter at an effluent outlet to measure the clarity of the treated wastewater effluent (i.e., a third sensor that is disposed within the effluent; p0027). Said turbidity meter and other elements of the system are controlled by a PLC (i.e. receiving, by the controller, a third series of measurements output by a third sensor; p0025). The turbidity meter at the effluent outlet measures clarity continuously (i.e., configured to periodically generate a measurement indicative of the clarity of the effluent over the interval of time; p0037). Advantageously, monitoring the clarity of the effluent stream by PLC allows for better control of the treatment process to control the clarity of the effluent stream. Thus, prior to the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a third sensor disposed in the effluent configured to periodically measure clarity over time as taught by MITZLAFF for the method taught by GILMOUR.
Regarding Claim 10, modified GILMOUR makes obvious the method of Claim 9. MITZLAFF further indicates that if a turbidity measured by the turbidity meter exceeds a maximum predetermined value, the controller will adjust the coagulant or polymer additive flow rate until a desired level of turbidity has been reached (i.e., the variable flow rate is further varied in response to a determination, by the controller, based on an analysis of the third series of measurements, that the clarity of the effluent is outside of the specified range of values; p0037-0039).
Claims 30 and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILMOUR et al. (US 2010/0038318 A1) in view of DUNBAR (US 2009/0255876 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, GILMOUR anticipates the method of Claim 2. As noted earlier, GILMOUR further discloses subsystem 608 is simply a separation device, e.g., a separator (p0065). However, GILMOUR is deficient in explicitly disclosing the wastewater filtration system comprises a dissolved air flotation tank.
DUNBAR discloses a method and apparatus for treating wastewater through a cleansing process utilizing flocculants to maintain a certain clarity to the filtrate (p0023-0024). The method further includes feedback control schemes to determine the appropriate levels of polymers and flocculants to add to the wastewater (p0037) and a dissolved air flotation tank (i.e., DAF; p0037, p0039). Advantageously, the use of a DAF tank combined with flocculation more efficiently removes waste sludge to produce more clarified water and is a well-known and conventional process used by one of ordinary skill in the art (p0039). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize a dissolved air flotation tank as taught by DUNBAR in combination with chemical additive treatment by flocculants and polymers in the method disclosed by GILMOUR.
Regarding Claim 31, all but one of the recited limitations are explicitly disclosed or implicitly taught by GILMOUR as rejected in Claim 2. The lacking recitation is the requirement that a “dissolved air flotation tank” is provided. However, as noted in the rejection of Claim 30, GILMOUR in view of DUNBAR makes obvious the recited limitation of “a dissolved air flotation tank”. Thus, all recited limitations of Claim 31 are obvious over GILMOUR in view of DUNBAR as rejected in Claim 30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights