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 set forth by the applicant on 07/30/2026 with the amendments to claims 1 and 6, as well as the addition of new claims 29-45.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 103 rejection over claims 1-10 regarding how Castillo modified by Kiely does not teach a “biological sensor is in contact with the ozonated effluent from the ozonation unit and adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor” has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The applicant relies on the argument wherein the biological sensor of Castillo Rivera is not measuring the growth or metabolism of the microorganisms, thus cannot be modified by Kiely, as the sensors of the two inventions do not pertain to the same sensing context. However, as taught by Castillo, “sensor 8” (mapped to Castillo in the nonfinal rejection) can measure total/dissolved organic carbon {Castillo, [0041]}. Similarly, bio-electrochemical sensor of Kiely, is taught to correlate metabolic activity to carbon consumption. [Kiely, [0022]} Given the reasons presented, the examiner believes that the modification of Castillo with Kiely would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 103 rejection over claims 1-10 regarding the improper combination of Castillo and Kiely have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant had failed to mention the examiner’s motivation for combination as stated in the nonfinal office action, wherein the measurements of Kiely provide better accuracy and efficiency, as well as a reduction of operating costs. Secondly, MPEP § 2141.01(a) “Analogous and Non-analogous Art” recites what constitutes analogous art. Generally, art has to fulfill one of these two requirements “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” In this instance Castillo is considered analogous to Kiely because these references both exist in the narrow field of endeavor of continuous monitoring and control of biological activity within a wastewater treatment system.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to new claims 29-45 have been considered, however, as these are new claims, the nonfinal rejection had not rejected these claims, thus they will be examined on their full merits in the correspondence to follow.
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 30-32, 35, and 44-45 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.
Claims 30-32, 35, and 44-45 recite the limitation "carbon consumption rate (CCR)", and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these claims. This limitation is first claimed in the alternative in claim 29 (pertaining to the rejection of claims 30-32), and again claimed in the alternative in claim 34 (pertaining to the rejection of claims 35 and 44-45). Indefiniteness arises as this term was claimed in the alternative, thus, for example, if the biological sensor was based on the carbon-biodegradation measurement, opposed to the carbon consumption rate in claim 29, then claims 30-32 would be attempting to limit a feature that does not exist. The same issue exists in claims 35 and 44-45.
Claim 30 recites indefinite phrasing, where it is unclear what the “extent to which” is required for the correlation of the two parameters. The examiner has interpreted this language as unnecessary, and reads the claims as, “… configured to correlate the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement to which the organic containments …”
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo (US20110259832A1) in view of Kiely (US20200283314A1).
Regarding claim 1, Castillo teaches a water treatment system comprising, an ozonation unit; {Claim 31 re. wastewater treatment system & [0029] re. using static mixer as an oxidation reactor for ozone} and,
a biological sensor, {[0065] re. sensor 8 as a biological sensor & [0041] re. COD, TOC, and DOC} wherein the biological sensor is in contact with ozonated effluent from the ozonation unit. {[0038] re. measuring the parameters before, during, and after mixing [which is also where ozone is added]}
Castillo fails to teach the biological sensor is adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor.
Kiely, drawn to a biological sensor for monitoring carbon {Kiely, Title}, teaches the biological sensor is adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor. {[0022] re. BES (bio-electrochemical sensor) monitoring metabolic activity with correlation to organic carbon compounds}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor as Kiely, similar to Castillo, teaches of a biological sensor that is used to measure the carbon change in a microbial population. {Kiely, Abstract} Doing so would increase the accuracy of measurement and efficiency of the sensor, reduce the operational costs, and increase the performance of the wastewater system. {Kiely, [0023]}
Regarding claims 2-5, Castillo fails to teach wherein the biological sensor measures the extent to which organic contaminants in the effluent from the ozonation unit are biodegradable; (Claim 2)
wherein the biological sensor produces or enables a measurement or signal related to carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; (Claim 3)
wherein the biological sensor is a bio-electrochemical sensor that produces an electrical signal related to the metabolic activity of bacteria on an electrode of the sensor; (Claim 4)
wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit to deliver a voltage or current across an electrode pair of the biosensor. (Claim 5)
Kiely teaches wherein the biological sensor measures the extent to which organic contaminants in the effluent from the ozonation unit are biodegradable; (Claim 2) {[0093] re. the correlation between the steady-state current and the organic carbon consumption within a system}
wherein the biological sensor produces or enables a measurement or signal {[0022] re. BES providing an electrical output} related to carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; (Claim 3) {[0093] re. the correlation between the steady-state current and the organic carbon consumption within a system}
wherein the biological sensor is a bio-electrochemical sensor that produces an electrical signal related to the metabolic activity of bacteria on an electrode of the sensor; (Claim 4) {[0024] re. bio-electrochemical sensor (BES) providing an electrical output based on metabolic activity through an electrode pair}
wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit to deliver a voltage or current across an electrode pair of the biosensor. (Claim 5) {[0024] re. power source delivering a voltage across an electrode pair}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor measures the extent to which organic contaminants in the effluent from the ozonation unit are biodegradable; (Claim 2) wherein the biological sensor produces or enables a measurement or signal related to carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; (Claim 3) wherein the biological sensor is a bio-electrochemical sensor that produces an electrical signal related to the metabolic activity of bacteria on an electrode of the sensor; (Claim 4) wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit to deliver a voltage or current across an electrode pair of the biosensor (Claim 5) as these modifications are all integral to the operation of Kiely; and similar to claim 1, the combination of these components, as taught by Kiely, improve accuracy and efficiency, while reducing the operating costs. {Kiely, [0023]}
Regarding claim 10, Castillo teaches the system of claim 1 connected to the outlet of a secondary or tertiary treatment unit of a municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant. {[0061] re. influent water that has already undergone biological, chemical, and or physical purification in a sewage plant}
Regarding claim 34, Castillo teaches a water treatment system comprising: an ozonation unit; {Claim 31 re. wastewater treatment system & [0029] re. using static mixer as an oxidation reactor for ozone}
a biological sensor downstream of the ozonation unit and in contact with ozonated effluent from the ozonation unit. {[0065] re. sensor 8 as a biological sensor & [0041] re. COD, TOC, and DOC & [0038] re. measuring the parameters before, during, and after mixing [which is also where ozone is added]}
Castillo fails to teach wherein the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor;
and a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria.
Kiely, drawn to a biological sensor for monitoring carbon {Kiely, Title}, teaches wherein the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; {[0024] re. bio-electrochemical sensor (BES) providing an electrical output based on metabolic activity through an electrode pair}
and a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor {[0107] re. controller coupled with sensor} and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria. {[0093] re. the correlation between the steady-state current and the organic carbon consumption within a system}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor;
and a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria as Kiely, similar to Castillo, teaches of a biological sensor that is used to measure the carbon change in a microbial population. {Kiely, Abstract} Doing so would increase the accuracy of measurement and efficiency of the sensor, reduce the operational costs, and increase the performance of the wastewater system. {Kiely, [0023]}
Regarding claims 36-38 Castillo fails to teach wherein the biological sensor is a bio- electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode, and wherein the signal generated by the biological sensor is an electrical signal corresponding to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria on the electrode; (Claim 36)
wherein the electrode is part of an electrode pair of the bio-electrochemical sensor; (Claim 37)
wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit configured to deliver a voltage or current across the electrode pair. (Claim 38)
Kiely teaches wherein the biological sensor is a bio- electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode, and wherein the signal generated by the biological sensor is an electrical signal corresponding to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria on the electrode; (Claim 36) {[0024] re. bio-electrochemical sensor (BES) providing an electrical output based on metabolic activity through an electrode pair}
wherein the electrode is part of an electrode pair of the bio-electrochemical sensor; (Claim 37) {[0024] re. bio-electrochemical sensor (BES) providing an electrical output based on metabolic activity through an electrode pair}
wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit configured to deliver a voltage or current across the electrode pair. (Claim 38) {[0024] re. power source delivering a voltage across an electrode pair}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is a bio- electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode, and wherein the signal generated by the biological sensor is an electrical signal corresponding to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria on the electrode; (Claim 36) wherein the electrode is part of an electrode pair of the bio-electrochemical sensor; (Claim 37) wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit configured to deliver a voltage or current across the electrode pair (Claim 38) as these modifications are all integral to the operation of Kiely, and similar to claim 34; the combination of these components, as taught by Kiely, improve accuracy and efficiency, while reducing the operating costs. {Kiely, [0023]}
Claims 6-9, 29, 32, and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo (US20110259832A1) modified by Kiely (US20200283314A1), as applied to the claims above, in view of Tempest (US20040168989A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Castillo fails to teach wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the ozonation unit.
Tempest, drawn to a system for biological purification utilizing ozone {Tempest, [0013]}, teaches wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the ozonation unit. {[0047] re. a monitoring unit connected to a programmable logic controller (PLC), which can correlate and adjust ozone supply}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Castillo with Tempest’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the ozonation unit as Tempest, similar to modified Castillo, teaches a biological purification system that controls microbial growth through the addition of ozone. {Tempest, [0010-0015]} Doing so increases the efficiency of the system, as it is well known in the art, that providing automated controls saves the user time and allows for greater accuracy in regards to the monitoring and dosing within the water system. {Tempest, [0049] re. automation}
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Castillo fails to teach a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit; (Claim 7) and wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter. (Claim 8)
Tempest teaches a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit; (Claim 7) {[0040] re. the activated carbon adsorbent unit (biological treatment unit) after the ozonation unit & Figure 1} and wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter. (Claim 8) {[0039] re. activated carbon unit is preferably a biologically active carbon filter}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Castillo with Tempest’s teachings of a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit; (Claim 7) and wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter (Claim 8) as this order of ozonation unit first, ozone destruction unit second, and activated carbon adsorbent unit (biological treatment) third, creates both oxygen-rich and ozone depleted water stream, wherein aerobic microorganisms flourish, which have been found to suppress the growth of harmful anaerobic microorganisms and destroy various organic particulates, which significantly extends the life of the activated carbon adsorbent unit. {Tempest, [0040]}
Regarding claim 9, Castillo fails to teach wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit.
Kiely further teaches wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit. {[0094] re. electrical sensor may provide signal changes once a threshold is reached, while in communication with a processor, to adjust the conditions of the system}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit as doing so increases the efficiency of the system, as it is well known in the art, that providing automated controls saves the user time and allows for greater accuracy in regards to the monitoring and dosing within the water system. {Kiely, [0023] re. improved efficiency and timing with reduced costs}
Regarding claim 29, Castillo teaches wherein the biological sensor is downstream of the ozonation unit. {[0038] re. measuring the parameters before, during, and after mixing [which is also where ozone is added]}
Castillo fails to teach the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria.
Kiely teaches the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; {[0022] re. BES providing an electrical output & [0093] re. the correlation between the steady-state current and the organic carbon consumption within a system} and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria. {[0093] re. the correlation between the steady-state current and the organic carbon consumption within a system}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the biological sensor is adapted to produce a signal related to metabolic activity of the population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor; and configured to determine, based on the signal generated by the biological sensor, a carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement of the population of bacteria as these modifications are all integral to the operation of Kiely; and similar to claim 1, the combination of the components, as taught by Kiely, improve accuracy and efficiency, while reducing the operating costs. {Kiely, [0023]}.
Modified Castillo fails to teach wherein the system further comprises a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor.
Tempest teaches wherein the system further comprises a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor. {[0047] re. a monitoring unit connected to a programmable logic controller (PLC), which can correlate and adjust ozone supply}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Castillo with Tempest’s teachings wherein the system further comprises a controller communicatively coupled to the biological sensor as doing so increases the efficiency of the system, as it is well known in the art, that providing automated controls saves the user time and allows for greater accuracy in regards to the monitoring and dosing within the water system. {Tempest, [0049] re. automation}
Regarding claim 32, Castillo fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control ozone dosage to maintain the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement above a threshold or within a desired range.
Kiely teaches wherein the controller is configured to control ozone dosage to maintain the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement above a threshold or within a desired range. {[0047] re. the threshold being maintained at a predetermined level, and carbon can be adjusted based on the outputs of this threshold (which measures carbon consumption)}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the controller is configured to control ozone dosage to maintain the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement above a threshold or within a desired range as utilizing operational thresholds can increase the efficiency of the removal of the pollutants from the waste stream, while maintaining the carbon addition efficiency when necessary. {Kiely, [0105]}
Regarding claim 42, modified Castillo fails to teach a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit, wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter, and wherein the biological sensor is positioned between the ozonation unit and the biological treatment unit.
Tempest teaches a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit, {[0040] re. the activated carbon adsorbent unit (biological treatment unit) after the ozonation unit & Figure 1} wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter, {[0039] re. activated carbon unit is preferably a biologically active carbon filter} and wherein the biological sensor is positioned between the ozonation unit and the biological treatment unit. {Figure 1 re. monitoring occurring between the ozone contact chamber (ozonation unit) and activated carbon filter (biological treatment unit)}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Tempest’s teachings a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit, wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter, and wherein the biological sensor is positioned between the ozonation unit and the biological treatment unit as this order of ozonation unit first, ozone destruction unit second, and activated carbon adsorbent unit (biological treatment) third, creates both oxygen-rich and ozone depleted water stream, wherein aerobic microorganisms flourish, which have been found to suppress the growth of harmful anaerobic microorganisms and destroy various organic particulates, which significantly extends the life of the activated carbon adsorbent unit. {Tempest, [0040]}
Regarding claim 43, Castillo fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit based on the signal generated by the biological sensor.
Kiely teaches wherein the controller is configured to control an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit based on the signal generated by the biological sensor. {[0031] re. real time adjustments based on the signal of the measurement device}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castillo with Kiely’s teachings wherein the controller is configured to control an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit based on the signal generated by the biological sensor as it is well known in the art, that providing automated controls saves the user time and allows for greater accuracy in regards to the monitoring and dosing within the water system. {Kiely, [0023] re. improved efficiency and timing with reduced costs}
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo (US20110259832A1) modified by Kiely (US20200283314A1), as applied to the claims above, in view of Hatten (AU2010298328A1).
Regarding claims 40-41, modified Castillo fails to teach wherein the controller comprises a local controller of the biological sensor; (Claim 40) and wherein the controller is a system controller communicatively coupled to a local controller of the biological sensor. (Claim 41)
Hatten, drawn to an ozone water treatment system, {Hatten, [0008]} teaches wherein the controller comprises a local controller of the biological sensor; (Claim 40) {[0076] re. the computing system (controller) that may comprise a local network for the transference of signals across devices} and wherein the controller is a system controller communicatively coupled to a local controller of the biological sensor. (Claim 41) {[0076] re. the combination of a local and wide area networks for the integration of the computing system (controllers) across the entire system}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Castillo with Hatten’s teachings wherein the controller comprises a local controller of the biological sensor; (Claim 40) and wherein the controller is a system controller communicatively coupled to a local controller of the biological sensor (Claim 41) as Hatten, similar to modified Castillo, teaches of a water treatment system that utilizes ozone as an additive to create this same “oxygen-rich/ozone depleted zone” which reduces harmful bacteria, just like modified Castillo. {Hatten, [0046]} Doing so allows the user to have operational control, not only at the site of the system, but also in a separate location, saving the user time during operational monitoring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 30-32, 35, and 44-45 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Each of these claims contain limitations pertaining to the correlation between carbon consumption rate, the dosing of ozone, and the biodegradability of the ozonated effluent. (As shown below)
Claim 30: wherein the controller is configured to correlate the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement with an extent to which organic contaminants in the ozonated effluent have become biodegradable by treatment in the ozonation unit.
Claim 31: wherein the controller is configured to determine an ozone dosage for the ozonation unit based on the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement and a measured influent total organic carbon (TOC) concentration.
Claim 33: wherein the controller is configured to control an amount of ozone delivered to water in the ozonation unit based on the measurement or signal related to the carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of the population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor.
Claim 35: wherein the controller is configured to correlate the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement with an extent to which organic contaminants in the ozonated effluent have become biodegradable by treatment in the ozonation unit.
Claim 39: wherein the controller is configured to control an amount of ozone delivered to water in the ozonation unit based on the carbon consumption rate (CCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) measurement.
Claim 44: wherein the controller is configured to determine an ozone dosage for the ozonation unit based on the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement and a measured influent total organic carbon (TOC) concentration.
Claim 45: wherein the controller is configured to control ozone dosage to maintain the carbon consumption rate (CCR) measurement above a threshold or within a desired range
While the components of the combined Castillo, Kiely, and Tempest prior art may be capable of determining the ozone dosage for the ozonation unit, as they together teach the biological sensor and a controller, it would be non-obvious to determine this ozone dosage through the correlation of the carbon consumption rate.
As shown in the closest prior art of record, Van Nieuwenhuijzen (WO2019132655A1), the ozone dosage is determined through the either a combination of separate measurements of dissolved organic and/or total organic carbon (DOC/TOC) measurements. {Van Nieuwenhuijzen, Page 1 lines 29-39} This basis for ozone dosage is repeated throughout the art, as these carbon measurements pertain to the broader change in carbon within a system, which has been determined sufficient to base ozone dosage; opposed to the instant claims that bases ozone dosage on the more specific carbon degradation or consumption within the system.
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 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 /JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
