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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/552,201 application filed on September 25, 2023. Claims 1-9 are pending and have been fully considered. All claims are directed toward a method.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Spain on 03/25/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed or Examiner could not locate a certified copy of the ESP202130262 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilabert Oriol et al. (WO2019212720; Oriol) (APA US20210238072, which is referenced below) in view of Feng et al. (CN105565605) (English machine translation is referenced below).
Regarding claims 1-5, Oriol discloses a method of treating feed water (Abstract, Figs. 1-3) comprising the step of passing the feed water through a vessel 2 comprising a bed of crosslinked resin beads 4 having a height from 10 cm to 2 m ([0079]), said bed comprising a biostratum at the top of the bed and a bead stratum to produce treated water, wherein
(a) the area-normalized free void volume in the biostratum is 0.018 m3/m2 or less ([0004], [0057]);
(b) the packing density in the biostratum is 0.64 to 0.98 ([0004], [0068]);
(c) the ratio of the exterior surface area of the resin beads to the total free void volume in the biostratum is less than 2.0 to 50 n2/L ([0004]);
(d) the velocity of the water through the biostratum is 1 to 1,500 biostratum volumes per hour ([0004]); and
(e) the Reynolds number of the flow through the biostratum is 0.10 to 3.0 ([0004], [0064]).
Therefore, Oriol discloses the claimed invention, except
(f) the vessel comprises an intermediate distributor located from 5 to 195 cm below the top of the bed.
Given the height range for the bed and the distance of the intermediate distributor below the bed, it appears the intermediate distributor could be located at numerous locations within the bed and potentially even below the bed.
Feng discloses a chromium-plating waste water purifying system and water purification method that employs an aerobic biological filter material layer, the resin particle electrode layer, a diffusion chamber, an anaerobic biological filter material layer and water (Abstract, Fig. 1, zones 5, 4 and 22). It is undesired to have air in the lower zone of the bed (zone 22), which is for anaerobic water treatment) and which uses an intermediate air distributor (7) above the anaerobic zone (22). Aerating disk 19 through the aeration pipe 12 and the air compressor 7 are connected together to form an aeration system (p. 2 of 24), which one can interpret as an intermediate distributor. This provides required oxygen to the microorganisms (Id.)
Moreover, if Feng had disclosed an intermediate distributor below the crosslinked resin layer (4), it would have been obvious to install the intermediate distributor (7) above this
layer if it is desired to leave this layer undisturbed.
Therefore, given Feng’s demonstrated use of an intermediate distributor with a resin bead bed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place an intermediate distributor at a suitable location below the top of the bed.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The bead stratum does not comprise microorganisms, and wherein the biostratum-treated water passes through the bead stratum to produce treated water (Fig. 1, where the lower portion does not comprise microorganisms); Claim 3: The method further comprises a layer of inert particles having a density from 0.57 g/cm3 to 0.998 g/cm3 and a harmonic mean diameter from 2 to 4 mm ([Oriol, [0038]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment with alternate densities); Claim 4: The inert particles are amorphous particles having average sphericity from 0.7 to 1.0 and average roundness from 0.4 to 1.0 (Oriol, [0038]); Claim 5: The bed comprises a first type of resin bead and a second type of resin bead, wherein density of the second type of resin bead is greater than density of the first type of resin bead (Oriol, [0073], [0115], [0116], where it would have been obvious to employ multiple types of bead with different densities).
Regarding claims 6-9, Oriol and Feng combined discloses or suggests the method of claim 5, except wherein the vessel further comprises a top distributor with openings from 0.5 to 2.5 mm in diameter.
Oriol discloses, in vessel 2, a top distributor (8) which blocks the passage of resin beads, but which allows the passage of microorganisms, extracellular polymeric substances (EPS),and any other materials during backwashing ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the diameter of the openings would be close to the claimed range or alternately to adjust the openings to a suitable range.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 7: The method further comprises a subsequent cleaning step, which comprises forcing an aqueous medium into the vessel through the intermediate distributor, so that the water passes through the biostratum and leaves the vessel through the top distributor (if not already employed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention been obvious to employ water as a suitable substitute for air); Claim 8: The Reynolds number is 0.30 to 1.10 (Oriol, [0004], [0070]); and Claim 9: The method additionally comprises the step of passing the treated water through a water filtration process (Oriol, [0001], [0074], [0075], Figs. 2 and 3).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779