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 Election/Restriction Requirement
In response to the restriction/election requirement sent by the examiner on 02/18/2026, the applicant has elected claims 1-10, and withdrawn claims 11-28 from consideration. This has been acknowledged by the examiner, and claims 1-10 will be examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo Rivera (US20110259832A1), in view of Kiely (US20200283314A1).
In regards to claim 1, Castillo Rivera teaches a water treatment system comprising, an ozonation unit; {Claim 31, "Wastewater treatment system" and Paragraph 24, ""including an ozone oxidation step"} and, a biological sensor, {Paragraph 65, "Sensor 8 … this sensor consists of a biological sensor"} wherein the biological sensor is in contact with effluent from the ozonation unit. {Paragraph 38, "measuring this same parameter in the water coming out of said mixer [where ozone is added] and modifying the dispensed ozone dose accordingly" and Figure 1 reference (8)}
In regards to claim 10, Castillo Rivera 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. {Paragraph 61, "this water to be treated may be water that has already undergone a biological and/or chemical pr physical purification treatment in a sewage plant (SP)"}
They do not teach:
Claim 1: That the biological sensor is adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor.
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the biological sensor measures the extent to which organic contaminants in the effluent from the ozonation unit are biodegradable.
Claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the biological sensor produces or enables a measurement or signal related to carbon consumption rate (OCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor.
Claim 4: The system of claim 1 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 5: The system of claim 4 wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit to deliver a voltage or current across an electrode pair of the biosensor.
However, Kiely teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1-5 that Castillo Rivera does not teach.
In regards to claim 1, Kiely teaches that the biological sensor is adapted to measure the growth or metabolism of microorganisms associated with the biological sensor. {Paragraph 22, "BES … that monitor the metabolic activity of a population of exo-electrogenic bacteria"}
In regards to claim 2, Kiely teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the biological sensor measures the extent to which organic contaminants in the effluent from the ozonation unit are biodegradable. {Paragraph 93, "The steady-state current may be correlated … for example, an organic carbon compound is … consumed in the system … resulting in a deviation from the steady-state current”}
In regards to claim 3, Kiely teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the biological sensor produces or enables a measurement or signal {Paragraph 22, "BES … provide an electrical output"} related to carbon consumption rate (OCR) or carbon bio-degradation (CBD) of a population of bacteria associated with the biological sensor. {Paragraph 93, "The steady-state current may be correlated … for example, an organic carbon compound is … consumed in the system … resulting in a deviation from the steady-state current"}
In regards to claim 4, Kiely teaches the system of claim 1 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. {Paragraph 24, "bio-electrochemical sensor … provide an electrical output corresponding with the metabolic activity … comprising an electrode pair}
In regards to claim 5, Kiely teaches the system of claim 4 wherein the bio-electrochemical sensor comprises a power unit to deliver a voltage or current across an electrode pair of the biosensor. {Paragraph 24, "bio-electrochemical sensor … provide an electrical output corresponding with the metabolic activity … comprising an electrode pair and a power source to deliver a voltage across the electrode pair.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the biological sensor of Castillo Rivera with the biological sensor of Kiely because the system of Castillo Rivera discloses multiple options for the type of biological sensor, and Kiely discloses their sensor can be used in a variety of wastewater systems. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Kiely to Castillo Rivera because the sensor of Kiely can increase the accuracy of the measurement, increase efficiency, and even reduce operations costs. {Kiely, paragraph 23}.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo Rivera (US20110259832A1) and Kiely (US20200283314A1), in view of Tempest (US20040168989A1).
The combination of Castillo Rivera and Kiely teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 1-5 and 10; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 9, Kiely further teaches in view of Tempest, the system of claim 7 wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the biological treatment unit. {Paragraph 31, "change in electrical output beyond a threshold may produce a signal to adjust the delivery of one or more organic compounds …"
They do not teach:
Claim 6: The system of claim 1 wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the ozonation unit.
Claim 7: The system of claim 1 comprising a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit.
Claim 8: The system of claim 7 wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter.
However, Tempest teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6-8 that the combination of Castillo and Rivera does not teach.
In regards to claim 6, Tempest teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the biological sensor is connected to a controller adapted to adjust an operating parameter of the ozonation unit. {Paragraph 47, "such monitoring unit is communicatively connected to a programmable logic controller (PLC), which in turn is connected to the ozone supply and functions to correlatively actuate the ozone supply"}
In regards to claim 7, Tempest teaches the system of claim 1 comprising a biological treatment unit downstream of the ozonation unit. {Figure 1 reference (Activated Carbon Filter) being after the (Ozone Contact Chamber)}
In regards to claim 8, Tempest teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the biological treatment unit is a biologically active filter. {Figure 1 reference (Activated Carbon Filter) and Paragraph 39, "preferably a biologically active carbon filter"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the controls and biological treatment unit of the system of Tempest to the combined invention of Castillo Rivera and Kiely because these inventions appear within systems with the same goal of utilizing ozonation to treat water with microorganisms. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Tempest to Castillo Rivera and Kiely because the location of the activated carbon adsorption unit being after or downstream of the ozonation unit, Tempest achieved unexpected and surprising advantages of effectively preventing particulate build-up on the activated carbon adsorption unit, which extended the life of the unit. {Tempest, paragraph 40}
Conclusion
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights