DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-16 are pending. Claim 16 is new.
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 .
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 1-16 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. Independent Claims 1 and 12 both recite an optional filtration step or first filter, wherein said filtration step/filter comprises a mesh size of less than 50 pm. These limitations render their respective claims indefinite, as the claim language is unclear whether the optional step/filter is required to read on the claims or not. Claim 1 and its dependents are further rejected for reciting “preferably with a mesh size smaller than 50 pm”, which is rejected under the same logic as before. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this examination and to expedite prosecution, the examiner will assume the optional claim language is required; however, language that only “prefers” a certain option (such as preferably with a mesh size smaller than 50 pm” will not be given patentable weight.
Claims 3 and 10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for respectively reciting the limitations “optionally post-treated” and “after optional post-treatment”, wherein the logic behind these rejections is the same as the similar limitation above. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the optional limitation is required.
Claim 4 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting “preferably with a mesh size of 25 pm”, which is considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether this mesh size is required to read on the claim or not. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will not give the preferable language patentable weight.
Claims 5 and 7 additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting “wherein the post-treatment comprises a filtration step with a smaller mesh size than step c”. However, this limitation is considered indefinite because no mesh size or filtration is provided in step c. of Claim 1 (nor Claim 4, for that matter). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the claims mean “step d.”.
Claims 13 and 14 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 13 and 14, both dependent on Claim 9, recite the closed toilet system of Claim 12. This is considered indefinite because Claim 9 is drawn to a method, not a closed toilet system. The claim therefore is unclear on what the dependency should actually be: Claim 9 (as recited) or Claim 12 (as the claim language seems to suggest). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume Claims 13 and 14 are dependent on Claim 12.
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Both Claims 15 and 16 recite “a boat, train, aircraft, camper, trailer, bus, submarine or drilling platform, preferably a train”, which is considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether the use of the method should be on a train (the preferred option) instead of the other choices to read on the claim or not. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the preferable language will not be given patentable weight.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (herein referred to as “Poirier”, US Pat Pub. 2012/0160706) in view of Lunn et al. (herein referred to as “Lunn”, US 10676374).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Poirier discloses a method for the treatment of black water (Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0027]; unit for treatment of blackwater), comprising the steps of:
a. collecting black water (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0032]; Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]; black water for treatment is collected and pre-treated with salt or placed through a grinder or bar screen);
b. treating said black water in an electrocoagulation cell with iron or aluminum electrode, such that electrocoagulation effluent an electrocoagulation sludge are obtained (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0043]; see electro-coagulation/EC with aluminum or iron electrodes);
c. separating the electrocoagulation sludge from the electrocoagulation effluent (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0045]; electro-flotation further purifies effluent from electrocoagulation);
e. disinfecting said electrocoagulation effluent in an electro-oxidation cell with a titanium electrode, obtaining disinfected effluent (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; see electrooxidation with titanium electrodes).
However, while the reference does disclose removal of suspended solids and oils before the electrolytic oxidation (Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; electro-flotation), the reference is silent on filtering the electrocoagulation effluent with a mesh size smaller than 50 pm.
Lunn discloses ammonia capture and recovery system and method for removing ammonia from a wastewater stream in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating wastewater with hydrolysis (Abstract; Figure 2; Col. 14, Lines 17-63). Lunn further discloses picofiltration as a third stage that further purifies the water from any remaining brine/salt ions that could be entrained within the water (Col. 14, Lines 17-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Poirier to further comprise filtering the electrocoagulation effluent using picofiltration as taught by Lunn because Lunn discloses such filtration further purifies the water from any remaining brine/salt ions that could be entrained within the water (Lunn, Col. 14, Lines 17-63).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the obtained disinfected effluent is post-treated (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0054]; see oxidant removal step).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the obtained disinfected effluent is post treated, wherein the post-treatment comprises a filtration step with a smaller mesh size than step d. (Paragraph [0015]; reverse osmosis unit).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the obtained disinfected effluent is post-treated, wherein the post-treatment comprises a treatment with activated carbon (Paragraph [0059]; activated carbon can be used for post-treatment step).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the obtained disinfected effluent is post-treated, the post-treatment successively comprising a filtration step and an activated carbon treatment ,wherein the filtration step has a smaller mesh than step d (Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0059]; activated carbon can be used for post-treatment step, reverse osmosis may be used as potable water production step).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses, wherein the disinfected effluent, after optional post-treatment, is stored (Paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraphs [0098]-[0099]; potable water option after further post-treatment such as reverse osmosis, such water, if on a ship, would inherently be stored as drinking water).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 10, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the stored water has a chemical oxygen demand of up to 500 mg/L (Paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0015]; stored water is potable, far below 500 mg/L COD).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses use of the method for treatment of black water on a boat (Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (herein referred to as “Poirier”, US Pat Pub. 2012/0160706) in view of Lunn et al. (herein referred to as “Lunn”, US 10676374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piascik et al. (herein referred to as “Piascik”, US Pat Pub. 2019/0169054).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. While Poirier discloses a toilet as a water source (Paragraph [0004]; Paragraph [0007]), the reference is silent on the disinfected, post-treated effluent being used for flushing a toilet.
Piascik discloses a liquid waste treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating blackwater with electrolysis (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Piascik further discloses wherein disinfected, treated effluent is returned to flush a toilet as an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Figure 10; Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disinfected effluent of Poirier by using it for flushing a toilet as taught by Piascik because Piascik discloses such a use would be an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Piascik, Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0094]).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose comprising the steps of:
a. flushing a toilet, thereby obtaining black water (Poirier, Paragraph [0004]; Paragraph [0007]; toilet),
b. treating said black water in an electrocoagulation cell with iron or aluminum electrode, such that electrocoagulation effluent and electrocoagulation sludge are obtained (Poirier, Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0043]; see electro-coagulation/EC with aluminum or iron electrodes);
c. separating the electrocoagulation sludge from the electrocoagulation effluent (Poirier, Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0045]; electro-flotation further purifies effluent from electrocoagulation);
d. filtering the electrocoagulation effluent, obtaining filtered effluent (Lunn, Figure 2; Col. 14, Lines 17-63),
e. disinfecting said electrocoagulation effluent in an electro-oxidation cell with a titanium electrode, obtaining disinfected effluent (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; see electrooxidation with titanium electrodes).
However, the combined references are silent on flushing the toilet with recycled treated black water.
Piascik discloses a liquid waste treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating blackwater with electrolysis (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Piascik further discloses wherein disinfected, treated effluent is returned to flush a toilet as an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Figure 10; Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the toilet water of Poirier by using it for flushing a toilet as taught by Piascik because Piascik discloses such a use would be an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Piascik, Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0094]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (herein referred to as “Poirier”, US Pat Pub. 2012/0160706) in view of Lunn et al. (herein referred to as “Lunn”, US 10676374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woudenberg et al. (herein referred to as “Woudenberg” US Pat Pub. 2003/0075445).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. While Poirier discloses multiple uses of the application of current density (Figure 1), the combined references are silent on a current density for the electro-oxidation cell.
Woudenberg discloses bubble-free and pressure-generating electrodes for electrophoretic and electroosmotic devices in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing electrodes for the electrolysis of water (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]). Woudenberg further discloses applying a current density of 72 A/m2, as such a level of current prevents bubbles from being formed on the electrode that may interfere with electrolytic processing (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current density applied to the electro-oxidation cell to be at least 4 A/m2 as taught by Woudenberg because Woudenberg discloses higher current densities prevent bubble formation at the electrodes (Woudenberg, Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. While Poirier discloses multiple uses of the application of current density (Figure 1), the combined references are silent on a current density for the electrocoagulation cell.
Woudenberg discloses bubble-free and pressure-generating electrodes for electrophoretic and electroosmotic devices in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing electrodes for the electrolysis of water (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]). Woudenberg further discloses applying a current density of 72 A/m2, as such a level of current prevents bubbles from being formed on the electrode that may interfere with electrolytic processing (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current density applied to the electrocoagulation cell to be at least 4 A/m2 as taught by Woudenberg because Woudenberg discloses higher current densities prevent bubble formation at the electrodes (Woudenberg, Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0048]).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (herein referred to as “Poirier”, US Pat Pub. 2012/0160706) in view of Lunn et al. (herein referred to as “Lunn”, US 10676374) and Piascik et al. (herein referred to as “Piascik”, US Pat Pub. 2019/0169054).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Poirier discloses a closed toilet system (Paragraph [0004]; toilet on a watercraft such as a ship) comprising:
a toilet, the toilet having a flushing water inlet and a toilet outlet (Paragraph [0004]; toilet),
a macerator pump, the macerator pump having a pump inlet and a macerator pump outlet, the toilet outlet being in fluid communication with the macerator pump outlet (Figure 1; Paragraph [0004]; grinder),
an electrocoagulation cell with iron or aluminum electrode, provided with a separation mechanism for separating electrocoagulation effluent and sludge, the electrocoagulation cell having an electrocoagulation inlet, a sludge outlet, and effluent outlet (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0045]; see electro-coagulation/EC with aluminum or iron electrodes; electro-flotation further purifies effluent from electrocoagulation), and
an electro-oxidation cell with titanium or stainless-steel electrode, which has an electro-oxidation inlet and an electro-oxidation outlet, wherein the electro-oxidation inlet is in fluid communication with the effluent outlet (Figure 1; Figure 4A; Paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; see electrooxidation with titanium electrodes).
However, while the reference does disclose removal of suspended solids and oils before the electrolytic oxidation (Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; electro-flotation), the reference is silent on filtering the electrocoagulation effluent with a mesh size smaller than 50 pm.
Lunn discloses ammonia capture and recovery system and method for removing ammonia from a wastewater stream in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating wastewater with hydrolysis (Abstract; Figure 2; Col. 14, Lines 17-63). Lunn further discloses picofiltration as a third stage that further purifies the water from any remaining brine/salt ions that could be entrained within the water (Col. 14, Lines 17-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Poirier to further comprise filtering the electrocoagulation effluent using picofiltration as taught by Lunn because Lunn discloses such filtration further purifies the water from any remaining brine/salt ions that could be entrained within the water (Lunn, Col. 14, Lines 17-63).
However, the combined references are silent on a storage tank, wherein the storage tank is in fluid communication with the flushing water inlet of the toilet.
Piascik discloses a liquid waste treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating blackwater with electrolysis (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Piascik further discloses wherein disinfected, treated effluent is returned to flush a toilet via a storage tank as an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Figure 10; Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0074]; Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the toilet water of Poirier by using it for flushing a toilet as taught by Piascik because Piascik discloses such a use would be an act of reusing the wastewater after treatment (Piascik, Paragraph [0068]; Paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0074]; Paragraph [0094]).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 12, upon which Claim 13 is assumed to be dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses the closed toilet system comprising a second filter, the second filter being provided for filtering the electro-oxidation outlet, wherein the second filter has a mesh size smaller than 1 pm (Paragraph [0015]; reverse osmosis unit).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 12, upon which Claim 14 is assumed to be dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses wherein the closed toilet system further comprises a sorption column, the sorption column comprising an activated carbon column, the sorption column comprising a sorption inlet and sorption outlet, wherein the sorption inlet is in fluid communication with the electro-oxidation outlet obtained disinfected effluent is post-treated, wherein the post-treatment comprises a treatment with activated carbon (Paragraph [0059]; activated carbon can be used for post-treatment step).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 12, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Poirier further discloses use of the method for treatment of black water on a boat (Paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 02/20/2026