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
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
Cancelled
Previously Presented/Original
Pending
Examined
77-83
1-63
64-76
64-83
64-76
The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC §102/103 and 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated July 13, 2026, Applicant did not amend the claims. However, Applicant presents arguments concerning the merits of the claims and the propriety of Examiner’s rejections. Examiner addresses these arguments in the patentability analysis and a separate section below. Examiner maintains the prior rejections but attempts to further clarify the claim interpretations, rejections and associated rationales in the patentability analysis and the response to Applicant's arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 64-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beantragt (DE2804554; Beantragt)(of record)(Machine Translation is referenced below).
Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure.
Regarding claims 64-71, Beantragt discloses a transportable container 4 (or 20) for treating contaminated water using biomass (Abstract, [0003], Figs. 1-4, where transportability is not a structural feature per se but is a capability of the system, and where of one can transport essentially all structures; also, this is a apparatus claim and as such Examiner interprets this preamble as a container that is capable of, or that one can employ for treating contaminated water using biomass; thus, neither contaminated water nor biomass is required; however, the reference is addressed at “the increasing contamination of wastewater with chemical substances” ([0003])), the container comprising an open top (Fig. 1, with bridge on top the open container), a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet ([0007], [0008], [0030]; where a fluid inlet and fluid outlet are also implied, where all treatment systems are expected to have an inlet and outlet for fluid inflow and outflow; also, this is interpreted as an inlet and an outlet since fluid is merely one type of material potentially worked upon by the apparatus; [0007]: “. . .which pushes the floating sludge to the sludge channel located on the inlet side of the basin.” [0008], [0030]: “The floating sludge is conveyed in the direction of wastewater flow to the outlet side of the basin and removed there in a sludge channel.”) and a carriage 2 configured to move along a length of the container ([0007]), wherein the carriage comprises a harvester system configured to harvest at least a portion of the biomass and wherein contaminated water is received by the fluid inlet, and treated water is directed to the fluid outlet ([0005], [0007], [0008], [0011], [0012], [0014], [0027], where sludge is removed or harvested; one can interpret a removal device or system, for example, as a harvester system).
Alternatively, Beantragt discloses the claimed invention, except for the transportable aspect. However, portability or transportability is an expected convenience with a treatment system since it could be moved and adapted for any desired location. Thus, unless there are new and unexpected results brought about by this feature, transportability by itself is insufficient to patentable distinguish over an otherwise known structure, such that when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container to render it transportable.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 65: The carriage comprises a lifting mechanism 21 configured to raise and lower items between an interior and an exterior of the container ([0023]); Claim 66: The lifting mechanism comprises a lifting frame having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the distal end of the lifting frame is configured to pivot over the proximal end to enable the lifting point to be suspended adjacent to the carriage ([0012], [0021], [0023]); Claim 67: The harvester system comprises a skimmer affixed to the carriage, wherein the skimmer is affixed to the carriage with an articulated arm that enables the vertical position of the skimmer to be moveable between a lowermost position and an uppermost position ([0014]); Claim 68: The articulated arm is configured to retain the orientation of the skimmer while the vertical position is moveable between a lowermost position and an uppermost position, so that optimal orientation is ensured at different vertical positions ([0020]-[0024]); Claim 69: The harvester system comprises an extractor affixed to the carriage, wherein the extractor is affixed to the carriage with the articulated arm ([0002], [0006]); Claim 70: The container comprises a collector ramp proximal a second end wall ([0004], [0006]); and Claim 71: The container comprises a stowable chute ([0025]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 72-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beantragt (DE2804554).
Regarding claims 72-76, Beantragt discloses or suggests a container according to claim 64, except wherein the container comprises a header tank.
However, a header tank for water storage is a traditional design feature, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a header tank with any desired accompanying features and support, to maintain water pressure, assist the pump pressure line ([0027]), and manage any inflow fluctuations.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 73: The header tank is raisable using a header tank lifting device, so that the header tank can be raised to provide operational water pressure (claim 72 analysis).
Regarding claim 74, Beantragt discloses or suggests a container according to claim 64, except wherein the container comprises a plurality of panels mounted to at least one external wall, wherein at least one of the panels comprises either, or both, a green wall or a display face.
A display device is also traditional for monitoring the system’s performance. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include panels placed as desired, with at least a mounted display device to help visually monitor, understand and control the system.
Regarding claim 75, Beantragt discloses or suggests a container according to claim 74, except wherein at least one of the panels is configured to cover at least a portion of the open top of the container during transportation.
However, when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious matter of engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to place panels at desired and suitable locations, including at least partially above the open top during transportation to help protect and shield the inner portion from undesired elements, including environmental conditions and debris.
Regarding claim 75, Beantragt discloses or suggests an array of containers, wherein at least one container of the array is a container according to claim 64, wherein the outlet of each container, with the exception of a final container in the array, is configured to direct water to the inlet of another container in the array.
An array of containers with water directed as claimed is merely a duplication of known elements with no patentable significance unless it achieves new and unexpected results. Therefore, where greater treatment volume and control is desired, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an array of containers with appropriate inlets and outlets for allowing flow between and through the containers since it is expected that more containers will improve the treatments and allow for greater treatment volume in a given time frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07-13-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s contention that Beantragt does not disclose "treating contaminated water using biomass" as recited by claim 64, Examiner finds that the notion of treating contaminated water is only an intended or potential use in the claim. Claim 64 only requires a container that is capable of holding contaminated water and does not require the contaminated water or biomass, although contaminated water or wastewater is indeed present.
With respect to transportable aspect, this is either implicit or is addressed with an obviousness rationale in the patentability analysis. Applicant argues that “these are fixed
installations with tank widths of up to 11.2 meters,” however the noted nominal width mentioned in [0033] is described as a maximum. However, the dimensions can of course vary.
With respect to the claims, Examiner has only attempted to clarify the rejections and believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the patentability analysis above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights