DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 4 is 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 use the term “readily degradable” and “slowly degradable” to differentiate the organic matter in the wastewater. The duration of the biological process is adjusted using the “readily degradable” fraction of the organic matter. However, “readily degradable” is a relative term and is indefinite. While applicant describes calculation examples 1-3, none of these examples give a method to calculate the readily degradable organic matter to any degree of precision. Example 1 describes the readily degradable as the cumulative BOD for the oxygen consumption rate remaining above an arbitrary value. Examples 2 and 3 states that it “may be calculated/determined from a formula (which may be a map, table, or the like) that defines a relationship …” Therefore, applicant has not provided any clear definition of the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as obvious over, Miyake et al (US 2018/0339925).
At the outset, Miyake teaches applicant’s claimed apparatus of claim 4 in figures 1 and 3-6. As can be clearly seen, these figures are identical to the figures 1-5 of applicant’s disclosure. The remaining elements in claim 4 only recite the operational parameters, which are not patentable in an apparatus claim, but taught in the abstract and claims. Claim 4 is for an apparatus. Therefore, the adaptation of the controller to set the duration is only a capability, which the reference teaches. The BOD load of the readily degradable organic matter is only a value the controller uses to do the calculations. It is also observed that the teaching of Miyake is about degradable organic matter; how readily degradable is just relative.
Claims 1 is anticipated by the abstract and claim 1 of Miyake. While the reference is silent on the readily degrading and slowly degrading organic matter, these are inherently present in the wastewater stream. The reaction time is adjusted to the same range of range of 0.05 to 0.25 kg BOD/kg MLSS as claimed. Applicant also has the sludge retention time optimized as 5-25 days in [0037] in the semi batch reactor, like what is taught by the reference. See the abstract. Nonetheless, the claimed invention is also an optimization of the process to obtain the best sludge removal, as taught by Miyake, Id.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyake teaching of ‘degradable BOD.’ The term “readily” is only a relative term. In any case, since Miyake arrives at the same range of values, the claims are anticipated.
Claim 2 recites the composition of wastewater fed into the system, which is not a patentable invention unless otherwise shown. Composition of wastewater depends on its source, surroundings and weather conditions it has been exposed to.
Claim 3: wastewater outlet higher than the wastewater inlet: see figures 4 and 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection.
Also, when the equation structure is the same and the output is the same, the values of the variables used must also be the same. Applicant’s readily degradable may be the same as Miyake’s degradable if one follows the teaching of Miyake, fig. 2. Fig. 2 suggests that Miyake’s degradable matter is realistic like degradable within a few days, not weeks, months or years. This also appears similar to applicant’s calculation example 1.
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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights