DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on July 30, 2026.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected. Claims 12 and 16 have been canceled. Claim 18 has been added. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The drawings were received on July 30, 2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Pages 13-14 (“Pg”)) are directed towards the replacement sheets filed on July 30, 2026. Those drawings, however, have not been entered as the drawings contain new matter illustrated in newly submitted Figures 10A and 10B (see MPEP 608.02(h)). As such, the prior objections stand.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 9 have been amended and the objections withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 11
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to overcome the antecedent basis rejections.
Claims 1 and 12
Claim 1 has been amended and Claim 12 canceled such that the rejections related to vertical motion are withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 7
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “tank intensity” (Remarks, Pg15) are not directed towards the issue with the membrane surface area which formed the basis of the rejections and thus the rejections stand.
Claim 2 and 3
The claims have been amended and the rejections1 withdrawn.
Claim 7
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding “average trash level” being amended to “average trash concentration” (Remarks, Pg15-16), the specification indicates the measurement relies upon an ASTM No. 18 sieve (Paragraph 21 (“Pr”)) yet does not give a version of ASTM No. 18 which is subject to change and thus the amended limitation is also indefinite.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding “mixed liquor” being understood by one skill in the art (Remarks, Pg15-16), Applicant offers no evidence yet argument cannot supplant evidence (MPEP 2145(I)). Applicant also argues that “mixed liquor” is used consistent with the specification yet the specification only repeats the term and does not offer any definition. Finally, Applicant’s arguments reliance upon Figures 10A and 10B to define “mixed liquor” is moot as these drawings have not been entered as discussed supra.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the recitation of acts (Remarks, Pg16), the claim has been amended and the rejection withdrawn.
Claim 8
The rejection of Claim 8 has been withdrawn based upon the recitation of acts in Claim 7 from which the claim depends.
Claims 13, 16, and 17
Claims 13 and 17 have been amended and Claim 17 canceled such that the antecedent basis rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The upstream clarifier or fine screen as recited in Claim 4;
The screen recited in Claim 5;
The rotating drum screen recited in Claim 6;
The screen recited in Claim 8; and,
The piston seals recited in Claim 11
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: 77 in paragraph 26 and 75 in paragraph 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The amendment filed July 30, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Paragraph 19 changes the definition of tank intensity to being dependent on a single cassette;
Paragraphs 20.1 describes the new matter and relates to Figures 10A and 10B which have not been entered; and,
Paragraph 21 refers to recirculated mixed liquor which, contrary to Applicant’s assertion (Remarks, Pg10), is not supported by originally filed Claim 7.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, and 18, Applicant has not identified any support for the structural amendments in the application as filed and there does not appear to be support in the application as field for the amendments. Thus, Applicant has not met the burden to adequately show possession of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2163(II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, the amendments to paragraph 19 of the specification change the meaning of the claim limitation “tank intensity” to being dependent on the membrane surface area of a single cassette while referencing two different cassettes 10 and 50 which finds no support in the application as filed.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 recites “a gap between adjacent ones of the modules” without identifying what is mean by “ones” such that what is actually being claimed in not clear.
Claim 1 recites a specific “tank intensity” yet amended paragraph 19 of the specification indicates the tank intensity relies upon the “membrane surface area of a single cassette 10, 50” and, as seen in the drawings, 10 and 50 are two different cassettes rendering the limitation indefinite. Moreover, Applicant’s definition of tank intensity includes the membrane surface area but does not specify whether such that is it a portion of the membrane or the entire membrane or only that portion subjected to fluid flow.
Claim 2 recites a specific “tank intensity” yet amended paragraph 19 of the specification indicates the tank intensity relies upon the “membrane surface area of a single cassette 10, 50” and, as seen in the drawings, 10 and 50 are two different cassettes rendering the limitation indefinite. Moreover, Applicant’s definition of tank intensity includes the membrane surface area but does not specify whether such that is it a portion of the membrane or the entire membrane or only that portion subjected to fluid flow.
Claim 3 recites “the gap between adjacent ones of the modules” without identifying what is mean by “ones” such that what is actually being claimed in not clear.
Claim 7 recites a specific “tank intensity” yet amended paragraph 19 of the specification indicates the tank intensity relies upon the “membrane surface area of a single cassette 10, 50” and, as seen in the drawings, 10 and 50 are two different cassettes rendering the limitation indefinite. Moreover, Applicant’s definition of tank intensity includes the membrane surface area but does not specify whether such that is it a portion of the membrane or the entire membrane or only that portion subjected to fluid flow.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “mixed liquor” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not define the limitation rendering the claim indefinite as discussed supra.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “average trash concentration” yet the specification indicates the measurement relies upon an ASTM No. 18 sieve (Pr21) yet does not give a version of ASTM No. 18 which is subject to change and thus the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “a gap between adjacent ones of the modules” without identifying what is mean by “ones” such that what is actually being claimed in not clear.
Claim 11 recites “piston seals” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not define the limitation rendering the claim indefinite
Claim 18 recites “the gap between adjacent ones of the modules” without identifying what is mean by “ones” such that what is actually being claimed in not clear.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct, the prior art of record appears to disclose, either alone or in combination, the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 Although Applicant refers to these claims as having been objected to (Remarks, Pg15), these claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112(b)
Prosecution Insights