DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 19; as well as the cancellation of claims 9 and 26. The examiner has withdrawn the 112(a) rejection as claims 9 and 26 have been cancelled. The examiner has withdrawn the 103 rejections due to the reasons set forth below in the “Response to Arguments” section. Note that while the examiner may have withdrawn the 103 rejections, it is not assumed that all arguments were found to be persuasive; however, due to the amendments of the independent claims, the scope of the claim set has changed. The examiner’s decision of persuasive and non-persuasive arguments according to the amended claims will be detailed in the following section.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 19-20 over Coyne in view of Wang, wherein the applicant argues the inventions of Wang and Coyne are non-analogous to each other; the examiner does not find this persuasive, as while Wang may utilize an ion resin treatment process, {Wang, [0005]} opposed to Coyne’s chemical treatment process, {Coyne, abstract} both inventions were created with the same function of fluid treatment through increasing the efficiency within the water treatment system; and it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine different types of water treatment processes, including the ability to change between “parallel vs lead-lag” with a goal of creating a more effective treatment system. The benefits of parallel vs lead-lag are commonly known throughout the art, from continuing operation during downtime of one side (parallel), or continuing operation with varying rates of inflow (lead/lag or series).
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 19-20 over Coyne in view of Wang, wherein the applicant argues the scaling of Coyne would require “non-routine redesign”; the examiner does not find this persuasive as the applicant is targeting the references individually, not as a group. The examiner uses the Ghalib reference to teach the claimed GPM range. Given Ghalib teaches the claimed range, there would not be any non-routine changes, as the referenced art is capable of that flow range, and thus would have the components to handle the increased flow rates. The examiner would like to acknowledge the discrepancy between the range taught by Coyne and the range taught by Ghalib. While the applicant may be arguing the discrepancy between 75 gpm (Coyne) and 2,000gpm (Ghalib), given Ghalib teaches a range of even greater magnitude of discrepancy (2,000 to 1,500,000 gpm) compared to the discrepancy between the combined reference, it is clear that one or ordinary skill in the art would be able to scale the invention of Coyne to be configured to operate with the rate taught by Ghalib. In response to applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 19-20 over Coyne in view of Wang, wherein the applicant argues Coyne only recirculates wastewater back to main pump 12, “never selectively or directly back to any tank in the system”; the applicant has not defined “selectively” in the specification, and they do not have support in the specification to mean “directly”, as which they are arguing in their remarks. While Coyne does not directly send wastewater to reactor assemblies, they send water back to the main pump to flow through the entire system again, {Coyne, Column 11 lines 62-65} Coyne (as claimed) does selectively reintroduce the wastewater back into the reactor assemblies. While the water goes through the main pump first, the wastewater, does get reintroduced into the reactor tank assemblies of their invention. Due to the reasons set forth, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 3 and 21 over Coyne and Wang, in view of Tharp, the applicant argues the Tharp does not teach an integrated buffer tank within the reactor tank assembly. The information of original claims 3 and 21 were brought into their respective independent claims and the limitations of the buffer zones being integrated into the reactor tank assemblies have been added. Due to these amendments, the examiner finds this persuasive and the rejection will be withdrawn due to the amendments in the claims.
In regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 4 and 22 over Coyne and Wang, in view of Ghalib, wherein the applicant argues Ghalib does not teach precise control over the claimed range; nowhere in the claims is there any further limitation aside from the variability in flow rates being between 2,500 and 10,000 GPM. Given Ghalib teaches a range that fully encompasses the claimed range, this argument is not found to be persuasive. Also, such flow rate ranges are deemed to constitute results- effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize what flow rate would be most beneficial for the objective of the invention. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
In regards to the applicant’s argument ‘D’ of the rejection of claims 5-6 and 23-24 over Coyne, Wang, and Ghalib; in view of Tharp, see the response to the above arguments for the persuasiveness or non-persuasiveness decisions.
In regards to the applicant’s argument ‘E’ of the rejection of claims 8 and 25 over Coyne and Wang, in view of Quintel, wherein the applicant argues Quintel is only made for small scale use, note Quintel is not being used for claimed flow rates, and simply used to show the functionality and obviousness of utilizing a bag filter at the outflow of a treatment process. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to configure a bag filter to be capable of handling the varying claimed flow rates of the instant application. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to the applicant’s argument ‘F’ of the rejection of claims 10-18; the applicant acknowledges the overlap/redundancy of arguments in the method claims, compared to the device claims, thus, similar to the applicant, the examiner points to the responses to arguments of the device claims, for the conclusions and either persuasiveness or non-persuasiveness of the arguments.
The examiner would like a clear record; the 103 rejections must be withdrawn, due to the scope change of the independent claims, however, this does not mean that all arguments were persuasive. If the examiner does not find an argument persuasive, they may continue to map to the same portion of a reference, if that reference still best teaches the amended claimed limitations of the instant application, in regards to the new art that must be brought in, due to the amendments set forth by the applicant.
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 3 and 21 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a buffer zone" on page 2 of the instant claims. The third line of claim 1 also recites “a buffer zone”. It is unclear whether the buffer zone recited in claim 3 refers to the same buffer zone as claim 1, or if it refers to another, separate buffer zone.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a buffer zone" on page 6 of the instant claims. The sixth line of claim 19 also recites “a buffer zone”. It is unclear whether the buffer zone recited in claim 21 refers to the same buffer zone as claim 19, or if it refers to another, separate buffer zone.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation wherein a buffer zone can hold varying amounts of wastewater has already been limited in claim 1 of the instant claims, and thus, is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation wherein a buffer zone can hold varying amounts of wastewater has already been limited in claim 19 of the instant claims, and thus, is not further limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A).
Regarding claim 1, Coyne teaches a system for treating wastewater comprising: at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 2 lines 53-56 re. wastewater treatment system, first and second tank units with their multiple compartments} the at least one reactor tank assembly having a buffer zone configured to hold variable wastewater levels said at least one reactor tank {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments (teaching that they are a part of the first and/or second tank assembly compartments)}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Coyne further teaches the reactor tank assemblies are operable at least one or more of singly, as a series of reactor tank assemblies, and parallel with other reactor tank assemblies; {Column 2 lines 53-54 re. at least one mixing vessel (pertaining to the "singly" within the Markush group)} at least one inflow pipe and valve assembly coupled to the at least one reactor tank assembly adapted to direct wastewater into the at least one reactor tank assembly {Column 4 lines 45-51 re. conduit 26}
While silent to a valve on the inflow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches the wastewater enters through at least one inlet header port assembly disposed on a top portion of the reactor tank assembly; {Column 24 lines 43-44 re. inlet opening} at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly coupled by at least one outlet port assembly of the at least one reactor tank assembly adapted to direct wastewater out from the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 11 lines 60-62 re. how conduit 72 is directed to a municipal sewer, septic, storage, or recycled}
While silent to a valve on the outflow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches at least one return flow pipe and valve assembly of the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly adapted to direct, as required, at least a portion of the wastewater flowing out from the at least one reactor tank assembly back into the at least one reactor tank assembly. {Column 11 lines 60-65 re. how conduit 72 is directed to be recycled for reuse in the process}
While silent to a valve on the return flow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches at least one circulation pump assembly disposed on the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 11 lines 64-65 re. main pump 12 and returning the recycled fluid to main pump for recirculation} at least one carrier-injector pump assembly, the at least one carrier-injector pump assembly adapted to pump a portion of wastewater fed to it as a secondary stream of wastewater flowing through the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 15 lines 47-51 re. re. pump 286 and mixer 118 having a separate supply line to control chemical agents} at least one mixer assembly operationally disposed within the at least one reactor tank assembly adapted to mix wastewater in the reactor tank assembly, inclusive, when present, of wastewater drawn from the reactor tank assembly and selectively reintroduced back into the reactor tank assembly or into another reactor tank assembly of the at least one reactor tank assemblies through the at least one return flow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 7 lines 12-17 re. air curtain} and at least one pH sensor assembly disposed at least partially within the wastewater flow {Column 4 lines 53-55 re. pH sensor} and operationally coupled to at least one computer system, the at least one computer system adapted to control {Column 16 line 64 re. central processing unit and the ability to control all of the operational parameters} introducing at least one or more of acid from an at least one acid storage reactor tank and valve assembly operationally coupled to the wastewater flow and a caustic from an at least one caustic storage reactor tank and valve assembly operationally coupled to the wastewater flow, the at least one or more acid and caustic used to change the pH of the wastewater. {Column 5 line 66 re. the pH of wastewater in conduit 32 can be adjusted and Column 15 lines 39-42 re. aqueous chemical mixture supply tanks}
Coyne is also silent to the tanks containing acid or caustic however, every chemical can be considered an acid or a base (caustic), depending on their pH, and given the wastewater's pH can be adjusted, it is clear that the component within the “aqueous chemical mixture supply tanks” would be an acid or a base. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pH adjust a waste stream with acid or caustic, as these classes of chemicals are necessary to adjust pH in a solution, which is often a required environmental discharge limit of waste streams.
Coyne further teaches the at least one or more acid and caustic introduced to the wastewater as the wastewater flows through one or more streams of the outflow pipe and valve assembly. {Column 15 lines 41-43 re. the aqueous mixture being added to mixing chamber, wherein the fluid is flowing towards the discharge portion at this stage in the filtration process}
Regarding claim 2, Coyne teaches wherein at least one static mixer is disposed on the outflow pipe and valve assembly {Column 7 line 18 re. mixer 14} and at least one pH sensor is disposed on the outflow pipe and valve assembly following the static mixer, the pH sensor adapted to test wastewater pH after the wastewater has passed through the static mixer {Figure 1 re. "pH ck" in tank 16 downstream of mixer 14} and, if the pH is inclusively between 5.0 and 8.0, a selector valve adapted to be open and allow the wastewater to flow out of the system for treating wastewater and, if the pH is less than 5.0 or greater than 8.0, the selector valve assembly adapted to be closed and direct wastewater to flow back into a reactor tank assembly. {Column 6 lines 1-2 re. pH 4-8 & Column 11 lines 57-62 re. meeting desired water quality standards, the water can either go into the sewer for disposal or back into the system for retreatment}
Coyne is silent to a selector valve, however, as seen in the flow chart of Figure 1, at the end of the treatment process, the wastewater can be sent to three separate directions, which are based on the water quality standards (pH). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a selector valve in this location as Coyne states that valves can be added into the system to help with automation {Column 15 lines 59-67} and since this location has separate branches that the fluid can be sent, a selector valve would be necessary to communicate which branch to send the fluid dependent on the discharge parameters taught by Coyne, to increase the control and automation of the system.
Regarding the step wherein the pH is being checked for compliance with ranges set forth, Coyne is silent to pH as the parameter being checked, however pH is a common “water quality standard.” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume pH is one of the parameters of the quality standards taught by Coyne, as changes in pH can dramatically change the properties of the solution, creating a hazardous stream, if not within the standards set forth by a discharge agency.
Regarding claim 3, Coyne teaches wherein the at least one reactor tank assembly has a buffer zone suitable for holding variable wastewater levels. {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Regarding claim 7, Coyne teaches wherein a distribution trough of the at least one reactor tank assembly is adapted to receive wastewater and distribute that wastewater substantially evenly over the surface of wastewater already in the at least one reactor tank assembly. {Column 8 lines 1-8 re. compartment 1A and dispersing or spreading wastewater as it exits conduit 34 into the compartment}
Coyne is silent to the wastewater being distributing substantially even, however, Coyne further describes the spreading of the wastewater to include a cascade or waterfall effect. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume this waterfall effect is evenly spreading wastewater over the surface of the fluid in a tank to create a more favorable environment to skim some pollutants off of the top of the wastewater more easily. {Coyne, Column 8 lines 1-16}
Regarding claim 10, Coyne teaches a method for treating wastewater {Column 2 lines 48-48 re. wastewater treatment method} comprising: sending wastewater from at least one inflow pipe and valve assembly coupled to at least one reactor tank assembly into the at least one reactor tank assembly {Column 4 lines 45-51 re. wastewater 22 through conduit 26} through at least one inlet header port assembly disposed on a top portion of the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 24 lines 43-44 re. inlet opening} managing said wastewater levels with a buffer zone suitable for holding variable wastewater levels; {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments (teaching that they are a part of the first and/or second tank assembly compartments)}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Coyne further teaches mixing the wastewater by way of waterflow pressure generated by at least one circulation pump assembly; {Column 7 lines 12-17 re. air curtain} further mixing the wastewater by way of at least one mixer assembly, {Column 7 line 18 re. mixer 14} mixing to substantially uniform intermixing of an at least one or more of acid and caustic introduced to the wastewater within the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 3 lines 30-34 re. mixing aeration chambers with injection chemicals & Column 5 line 66 re. the pH of wastewater in conduit 32 can be adjusted}
In regards to mixing step, Coyne is silent to the uniformity of the mixing; the objective of a mixer, is to mix multiple components into a homogenous or uniform blend. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the wastewater and chemical agent solution to a substantially uniform blend, as a homogenous mixture of fluid is easier to treat, due to the lack of parameter changes necessary to treat said fluid.
In regards to the step of treating the wastewater stream, Coyne is also silent to acid or caustic, however, every chemical can be considered an acid or a base (caustic), depending on their pKa, and given the wastewater's pH can be adjusted, it is clear it would be adjusted with an acid or a base. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pH adjust a waste stream with acid or caustic, as these classes of chemicals are necessary to adjust pH in a solution, which is often a required environmental discharge limit of waste streams.
Coyne further teaches sending wastewater from the at least one reactor tank assembly through at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly coupled by at least one outlet port assembly of the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 11 lines 60-62 re. how conduit 72 is directed to a municipal sewer, septic, storage, or recycled} measuring pH by at least one pH sensor disposed within wastewater that has flowed into the outflow pipe; {Figure 1 re. "pH ck" in tank 16 downstream of mixer 14} if the pH is in an unacceptable range, treating the wastewater by introducing at least one or more of an acid and a caustic into the wastewater flow {Column 6 lines 1-2 re. pH 4-8 & Column 11 lines 57-62 re. meeting desired water quality standards, the water can either go into the sewer for disposal or back into the system for retreatment}
Regarding the step wherein the pH is being checked for compliance with ranges set forth, Coyne is silent to pH as the parameter being checked, however pH is a common “water quality standard.” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume pH is one of the parameters of the quality standards taught by Coyne, as changes in pH can dramatically change the properties of the solution, creating a hazardous stream, if not within the standards set forth by a discharge agency.
Coyne further teaches the acid or caustic is introduced by way of at least one secondary stream of the wastewater, {Column 15 lines 48-51 re. mixer 118 having a separate supply line to control chemical agents} a carrier-injector pump assembly pumping the secondary stream of wastewater from wastewater flowing through the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 15 lines 47-51 re. re. pump 286} if the pH was in an unacceptable range, sending at least a portion of the treated wastewater, back into the at least one reactor tank assembly by way of at least one return flow pipe and valve assembly of the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly, into a same or another reactor tank assembly of the at least one reactor tank assemblies; and if the pH is in an acceptable range, discharging at least a portion of the wastewater from the system for treating wastewater. {Column 6 lines 1-2 re. pH 4-8 & Column 11 lines 57-62 re. meeting desired water quality standards, the water can either go into the sewer for disposal or back into the system for retreatment}
Regarding claim 11, Coyne teaches testing wastewater pH after the wastewater has passed through at least one static mixer disposed on the outflow pipe and valve assembly, {Figure 1 re. "pH ck" in tank 16 downstream of mixer 14} if the pH is inclusively between 5.0 and 8.0, opening a selector valve assembly and allowing the wastewater to flow out of the system for treating wastewater and, if the pH is less than 5.0 or greater than 8.0, closing the selector valve assembly and directing wastewater to flow back into at least one reactor tank assembly. {Column 6 lines 1-2 re. pH 4-8}
Coyne is silent to a selector valve, however, as seen in the flow chart of Figure 1, at the end of the treatment process, the wastewater can be sent to three separate directions, which are based on the water quality standards (pH). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a selector valve in this location as Coyne states that valves can be added into the system to help with automation {Column 15 lines 59-67} and since this location has separate branches that the fluid can be sent, a selector valve would be necessary to communicate which branch to send the fluid dependent on the discharge parameters taught by Coyne, to increase the control and automation of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Coyne teaches holding variable wastewater levels within a buffer zone of the at least one reactor assembly. {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments (teaching that they are a part of the first and/or second tank assembly compartments)}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Regarding claim 13, Coyne teaches circulating variable rates of wastewater flows. {Column 5 lines 41-54 re. variable speed, main pump 12, and up to 4,500 gallons per day: Note this is not limiting the gpm of the combined system, rather showing that Coyne is circulates water at various speeds using the taught pump}
Regarding claim 16, Coyne teaches sending wastewater into a distribution trough and distributing the wastewater substantially evenly over the surface of the wastewater already in the at least one reactor tank assembly. {Column 8 lines 1-8 re. compartment 1A and dispersing or spreading wastewater as it exits conduit 34 into the compartment}
Coyne is silent to the wastewater being distributing substantially even, however, Coyne further describes the spreading of the wastewater to include a cascade or waterfall effect. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume this waterfall effect is evenly spreading wastewater over the surface of the fluid in a tank to create a more favorable environment to skim some pollutants off of the top of the wastewater more easily. {Coyne, Column 8 lines 1-16}
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) in view of Ghalib (WO2006130850A1).
Regarding claim 4, Coyne fails to teach wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute.
Ghalib teaches wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute. {Page 7 lines 22-24 re. 2,000-1,500,000gpm}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Ghalib’s teachings wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute as these are both water treatment systems with varying flow rates, and doing so would increase the throughput of the system over a period of time, increasing the speed at which water can be treated. Note similarly to the response to arguments above, the examiner would like to acknowledge the discrepancy between the range taught by Coyne and the range taught by Ghalib. While the applicant may be arguing the discrepancy between 75 gpm (Coyne) and 2,000gpm (Ghalib), given Ghalib teaches a range of even greater magnitude of discrepancy (2,000 to 1,500,000 gpm) compared to the discrepancy between the combined reference, it is clear that one or ordinary skill in the art would be able to scale the invention of Coyne to be configured to operate with the rate taught by Ghalib.
Regarding claim 5, Coyne teaches wherein circulation pump assemblies are adapted to handle varied rates of wastewater flows. {Column 5 lines 41-54 re. variable speed, main pump 12, and up to 4,500 gallons per day: Note this is not limiting the gpm of the combined system, rather showing that Coyne is circulates water at various speeds using the taught pump}
Regarding claim 14, Coyne fails to teach treating water flowing between about 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute.
Ghalib teaches water flowing between about 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute. {Page 7 lines 22-24 re. 2,000-1,500,000gpm}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Ghalib’s teachings wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute as these are both water treatment systems with varying flow rates, and doing so would increase the throughput of the system over a period of time, increasing the speed at which water can be treated. Note similarly to the response to arguments above, the examiner would like to acknowledge the discrepancy between the range taught by Coyne and the range taught by Ghalib. While the applicant may be arguing the discrepancy between 75 gpm (Coyne) and 2,000gpm (Ghalib), given Ghalib teaches a range of even greater magnitude of discrepancy (2,000 to 1,500,000 gpm) compared to the discrepancy between the combined reference, it is clear that one or ordinary skill in the art would be able to scale the invention of Coyne to be configured to operate with the rate taught by Ghalib.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) modified by Ghalib (WO2006130850A1), in view of Hawks (US20200071194A1).
Regarding claim 6, Coyne teaches wherein flow rate variability ranges are controllable by the at least one circulation pump, {Column 5 line 41 re. main pump 12} and a buffer zone. {Column 3 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks}
Coyne modified by Ghalib fails to teach a parallel reactor tank assembly.
Hawks further teaches a parallel reactor tanks assembly. {[0045] re. parallel}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne modified by Ghalib with Hawks’ teachings of a parallel reactor tank assembly as both Coyne modified by Ghalib and Hawks are water treatment systems that use physical and chemical filtration methods to treat wastewater. Doing so would introduce redundancy into the system, which is beneficial for further treatment of chemicals, and/or the ability to reduce downtime due to multiple processes configured to produce the same result, giving time for the operator to utilize one of the systems, while the other system is down for maintenance or cleaning.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) in view of Quintel (US8323493B2).
Regarding claim 8, Coyne fails to teach wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow.
Quintel teaches wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow. {Column 1 line 39-51 re. bag filter discharge to drain outlet}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Quintel’s teachings wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow as the bag strainer is designed to be a part of a wastewater system {Quintel, abstract re. wastewater reservoir} Doing so would increase the filtration ability of the system, as a bag filter at the end of a filtration process would be able to remove any unwanted impurities that were unable to be removed by the chemical flocculation/precipitation reactions that occur earlier in the process.
Regarding claim 17, Coyne fails to teach catching with at least one bag strainer larger particles and debris from the wastewater flow.
Quintel teaches catching with at least one bag strainer larger particles and debris from the wastewater flow. {Column 1 line 39-51 re. bag filter discharge to drain outlet}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Quintel’s teachings wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow as the bag strainer is designed to be a part of a wastewater system {Quintel, abstract re. wastewater reservoir} Doing so would increase the filtration ability of the system, as a bag filter at the end of a filtration process would be able to remove any unwanted impurities that were unable to be removed by the chemical flocculation/precipitation reactions that occur earlier in the process.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) in view of Hawks (US20200071194A1).
Regarding claim 15, Coyne teaches controlling wastewater flow with at least one circulation pump, {Column 5 line 41 re. main pump 12} buffer zone. {Column 3 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks}
Coyne fails to teach a parallel reactor tank assembly.
Hawks teaches a parallel reactor tank assembly. {[0045] re. parallel or series}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Hawks’ teachings of a parallel reactor tank assembly as both Coyne and Hawks are water treatment systems that use physical and chemical filtration methods to treat wastewater. Doing so would introduce redundancy into the system, which is beneficial for further treatment of chemicals, and/or the ability to reduce downtime due to multiple processes configured to produce the same result, giving time for the operator to utilize one of the systems, while the other system is down for maintenance or cleaning.
Regarding claim 18, Coyne teaches that the ability to switch between at least one or more of manually and automatically. {Column 16 lines 60-67 re. the system being capable of full automation}
While Coyne is silent to the manual aspect of their invention, given Coyne states the ability to become automatic, Coyne implicitly teaches the ability for the system to operate in a manual mode. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include manual and automatic switching capabilities, as manual mode allows the system to still be operable if there was an issue with power, and automatic mode allows the system to be operable with less input from the user, saving time and costs.
Coyne fails to teach lead-lag and parallel wastewater flows.
Hawks teaches lead-lag and parallel wastewater flows. {[0045] re. parallel or series}
Coyne modified by Hawks is silent to the limitation regarding lead/lag, however, given Coyne teaches a variable circulation pump, and Hawks teaches series and/or parallel, it is clear to of ordinary skill in the art that the system is capable of performing a lead/lag flow configuration due to the configuration to flow two streams of wastewater at varying levels of flow, to produce a lead/lag flow pattern. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include both lead/lag and parallel, because it introduces redundancy into the system, which is beneficial for further treatment of chemicals, and/or the ability to reduce downtime due to multiple processes configured to produce the same result; giving time for the operator to utilize one of the systems, while the other system is down for maintenance or cleaning.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) in view of Wang (CN201999767U). *Wang is directed to the attached, machine-translated, English version.
Regarding claim 19, Coyne teaches a system for treating wastewater comprising: at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 2 lines 53-56 re. wastewater treatment system, first and second tank units with their multiple compartments} a distribution trough of the at least one reactor tank assembly adapted to receive wastewater and distribute that wastewater substantially evenly over the surface of wastewater already in the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 8 lines 1-8 re. compartment 1A and dispersing or spreading wastewater as it exits conduit 34 into the compartment}
Coyne is silent to the wastewater being distributing substantially even, however, Coyne further describes the spreading of the wastewater to include a cascade or waterfall effect. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume this waterfall effect is evenly spreading wastewater over the surface of the fluid in a tank to create a more favorable environment to skim some pollutants off of the top of the wastewater more easily. {Coyne, Column 8 lines 1-16}
Coyne further teaches the at least one reactor tank assembly having a buffer zone suitable for holding variable wastewater levels {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments (teaching that they are a part of the first and/or second tank assembly compartments)}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Coyne further teaches at least one second reactor tank assembly, {Column 2 lines 52-54 re. at least one mixing vessel} at least one inflow pipe and valve assembly coupled to the at least one reactor tank assembly adapted to direct wastewater into the at least one reactor tank assembly {Column 4 lines 45-51 re. conduit 26}
While silent to a valve on the inflow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches through at least one inlet header port assembly disposed on a top portion of the at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 24 lines 43-44 re. inlet opening} at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly coupled by at least one outlet port assembly of the at least one reactor tank assemblies adapted to direct wastewater out from the at least one reactor tank assemblies; {Column 11 lines 60-62 re. how conduit 72 is directed to a municipal sewer, septic, storage, or recycled}
While silent to a valve on the outflow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches at least one return flow pipe and valve assembly of the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly adapted to direct, as required, at least a portion of the wastewater flowing out from the at least one reactor tank assemblies back into at least one reactor tank assembly; {Column 11 lines 60-65 re. how conduit 72 is directed to be recycled for reuse in the process}
While silent to a valve on the return flow pipe, Coyne mentions in column 16 lines 59-67 that the invention can be designed to be fully automated including valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves in any location within the treatment process where the flow pattern branches into a new flow path or enters into a new tank, as it would be favorable to compartmentalize treatment areas for better quality control.
Coyne further teaches at least one circulation pump assembly disposed on the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 11 lines 64-65 re. main pump 12 and returning the recycled fluid to main pump for recirculation} at least one carrier-injector pump assembly, the at least one carrier-injector pump assembly adapted to pump a portion of wastewater fed to it as a secondary stream of wastewater flowing through the at least one outflow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 15 lines 47-51 re. re. pump 286 and mixer 118 having a separate supply line to control chemical agents} at least one mixer assembly operationally disposed within each reactor tank assembly adapted to mix wastewater in the at least one reactor tank assemblies inclusive, when present, of wastewater drawn from at least one reactor tank assembly and reintroduced into the at least one reactor tank assemblies into a same reactor tank assembly or another reactor tank assembly of the at least one reactor tank assemblies through the at least one return flow pipe and valve assembly; {Column 7 lines 12-17 re. air curtain} at least one pH sensor assembly disposed at least partially within the wastewater flow {Column 4 lines 53-55 re. pH sensor} and operationally coupled to at least one computer system, the at least one computer system adapted to control {Column 16 line 64 re. central processing unit and the ability to control all of the operational parameters} introducing at least one or more of acid from an at least one acid storage reactor tank and valve assembly operationally coupled to the wastewater flow and a caustic from an at least one caustic storage reactor tank and valve assembly operationally coupled to the wastewater flow, the at least one or more acid and caustic used to change the pH of the wastewater, {Column 5 line 66 re. the pH of wastewater in conduit 32 can be adjusted} and the at least one or more acid and caustic introduced to the wastewater as the wastewater flows through one or more streams of the outflow pipe and valve assembly. {Column 15 lines 41-43 re. the aqueous mixture being added to mixing chamber, wherein the fluid is flowing towards the discharge portion at this stage in the filtration process}
Coyne is also silent to the tanks containing acid or caustic however, every chemical can be considered an acid or a base (caustic), depending on their pH, and given the wastewater's pH can be adjusted, it is clear that the component within the “aqueous chemical mixture supply tanks” would be an acid or a base. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pH adjust a waste stream with acid or caustic, as these classes of chemicals are necessary to adjust pH in a solution, which is often a required environmental discharge limit of waste streams.
Coyne further teaches and one or more from a group of: temperature sensors disposed within the at least one or more of the reactor tank assemblies and pipe and valve assemblies, pressure sensors disposed within at least one or more of the reactor tank assemblies, and flow sensors disposed within at least one or more of the pipe and valve assemblies. {Column 16 lines 65-66 re. flow sensors or other wastewater condition sensors}
Coyne fails to teach the wastewater system is adapted to be operable in lead-lag flows and parallel flows with at least one second reactor tank assembly, changes between lead-lag flow and parallel flow adapted to be enacted at least one or more of manually and automatically.
Wang teaches the wastewater system is adapted to be operable in lead-lag flows and parallel flows. {Bottom page 2 re. series-parallel operational switching & Middle page 4 re. the system can be automatically controlled}
Coyne modified by Wang is silent to the limitation regarding lead/lag, however, given Coyne teaches a variable circulation pump, and Wang teaches series and/or parallel, it is clear to of ordinary skill in the art that the system is capable of performing a lead/lag flow configuration due to the configuration to flow two streams of wastewater at varying levels of flow, to produce a lead/lag flow pattern. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include both lead/lag and parallel, because it introduces redundancy into the system, which is beneficial for further treatment of chemicals, and/or the ability to reduce downtime due to multiple processes configured to produce the same result; giving time for the operator to utilize one of the systems, while the other system is down for maintenance or cleaning.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne with Wang’s teachings the wastewater system is adapted to be operable in lead-lag flows and parallel flows with at least one second reactor tank assembly, changes between lead-lag flow and parallel flow adapted to be enacted at least one or more of manually and automatically as both Coyne and Wang were created with the same function of fluid treatment through increasing the efficiency within the water treatment system. This modification would allow for increased efficiency as parallel flow would allow the system to be operational during downtime (maintenance, cleaning, etc.) of one side, while series flow would allow for continuous operation during periods of inconsistent rates of influent flow; and switching between the two allows the user to benefits from both types of operation.
Regarding claim 20, Coyne teaches wherein at least one static mixer is disposed on the outflow pipe and valve assembly {Column 7 line 18 re. mixer 14} and at least one pH sensor is disposed on the outflow pipe and valve assembly following the static mixer, the pH sensor adapted to test wastewater pH after the wastewater has passed through the static mixer {Figure 1 re. "pH ck" in tank 16 downstream of mixer 14} and, if the pH is inclusively between 5.0 and 8.0, a selector valve adapted to be open and allow the wastewater to flow out of the system for treating wastewater and, if the pH is less than 5.0 or greater than 8.0, the selector valve assembly adapted to be closed and direct wastewater to flow back into a reactor tank assembly. {Column 6 lines 1-2 re. pH 4-8 & Column 11 lines 57-62 re. meeting desired water quality standards, the water can either go into the sewer for disposal or back into the system for retreatment}
Coyne is silent to a selector valve, however, as seen in the flow chart of Figure 1, at the end of the treatment process, the wastewater can be sent to three separate directions, which are based on the water quality standards (pH). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a selector valve in this location as Coyne states that valves can be added into the system to help with automation {Column 15 lines 59-67} and since this location has separate branches that the fluid can be sent, a selector valve would be necessary to communicate which branch to send the fluid dependent on the discharge parameters taught by Coyne, to increase the control and automation of the system.
Regarding the step wherein the pH is being checked for compliance with ranges set forth, Coyne is silent to pH as the parameter being checked, however pH is a common “water quality standard.” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume pH is one of the parameters of the quality standards taught by Coyne, as changes in pH can dramatically change the properties of the solution, creating a hazardous stream, if not within the standards set forth by a discharge agency.
Regarding claim 21, Coyne teaches wherein the at least one reactor tank assembly has a buffer zone suitable for holding variable wastewater levels. {Column 2 lines 36-38 re. holding tanks that prevent solids from passing through to the following compartments (teaching that they are a part of the first and/or second tank assembly compartments)}
Coyne is silent to variable levels of wastewater, however, every tank is capable of holding varying levels of fluid. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holding tanks of Coyne hold variable levels of wastewater as doing so would create a restriction point in the process, allowing the reactor tanks to receive a constant rate inflow of fluid regardless of the flow rate of fluid entering the holding tank.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) modified by Wang (CN201999767U), in view of in view of Ghalib (WO2006130850A1). *Wang is directed to the attached, machine-translated, English version.
Regarding claim 22, Coyne modified by Wang fails to teach wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute.
Ghalib teaches wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute. {Page 7 lines 22-24 re. 2,000-1,500,000gpm}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne modified by Wang with Ghalib’s teachings wherein flow rate variability ranges inclusively between 2,500 and 10,000 gallons per minute as these are both water treatment systems with varying flow rates, and doing so would increase the throughput of the system over a period of time, increasing the speed at which water can be treated. Note similarly to the response to arguments above, the examiner would like to acknowledge the discrepancy between the range taught by Coyne and the range taught by Ghalib. While the applicant may be arguing the discrepancy between 75 gpm (Coyne) and 2,000gpm (Ghalib), given Ghalib teaches a range of even greater magnitude of discrepancy (2,000 to 1,500,000 gpm) compared to the discrepancy between the combined reference, it is clear that one or ordinary skill in the art would be able to scale the invention of Coyne to be configured to operate with the rate taught by Ghalib.
Regarding claim 23, Coyne teaches wherein circulation pump assemblies are adapted to handle varied rates of wastewater flows. {Column 5 lines 41-54 re. variable speed, main pump 12, and up to 4,500 gallons per day: Note this is not limiting the gpm of the combined system, rather showing that Coyne is circulates water at various speeds using the taught pump}
Regarding claim 24, Coyne teaches wherein flow rate variability ranges are controllable by the at least one circulation pump, buffer zone, and parallel reactor tank assembly. {Column 2 lines 53-54 re. at least one mixing vessel (pertaining to the "singly" within the Markush group)}
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyne (US5540836A) modified by Wang (CN201999767U), in view of Quintel (US8323493B2). *Wang is directed to the attached, machine-translated, English version.
Regarding claim 25, Coyne modified by Wang fails to teach wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow.
Quintel teaches wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow. {Column 1 line 39-51 re. bag filter discharge to drain outlet}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coyne modified by Wang with Quintel’s teachings wherein at least one bag strainer disposed on the outflow stream is adapted to catch particles and debris from the wastewater flow as the bag strainer is designed to be a part of a wastewater system {Quintel, abstract re. wastewater reservoir} Doing so would increase the filtration ability of the system, as a bag filter at the end of a filtration process would be able to remove any unwanted impurities that were unable to be removed by the chemical flocculation/precipitation reactions that occur earlier in the process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tharp (US20160200608A1) as they similarly teach equalization or buffer tanks assemblies along with parallel and series flow design.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights