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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (CN202310294866.7, filed on March 17, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “and cross-sectional area of a single electrode plate” should be corrected to read “and the cross-sectional area of a single electrode plate” for proper grammar.
The phrase “each are a direct-current (DC) regulated power supply” should be corrected to read “are each a direct-current (DC) regulated power supply” for proper grammar.
The phrase “each are a graphite electrode plate” should be corrected to read “are each a graphite electrode plate” for proper grammar.
The phrase “aerobic sludge with nitrifying bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “aerobic sludge with nitrifying bacteria as a dominant strain” for proper grammar.
The phrase “anoxic sludge with denitrifying bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “anoxic sludge with denitrifying bacteria as a dominant strain” for proper grammar.
The phrase “anoxic sludge with anammox bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “anoxic sludge with anammox bacteria as a dominant strain” for proper grammar.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The four occurrences of the unit “μs/cm” in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7 should be corrected to read “μS/cm” for correct conductivity unit notation.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “nitrifying bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “nitrifying bacteria as the dominant strain” for proper grammar.
The phrase “denitrifying bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “denitrifying bacteria as the dominant strain” for proper grammar.
The phrase “anammox bacteria as dominant strain” should be corrected to read “anammox bacteria as the dominant strain” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “cross-sectional area of a single electrode plate accounts for at least 50% of that of each of the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool.” It is unclear which cross-sectional plane of the cuboid electrode plate is compared with which cross-sectional plane of each anoxic pool, since different orientations may provide different cross-sectional areas. Applicant may amend the claim to clarify the orientation and corresponding cross-sectional areas used for the recited comparison. Claims 2-10, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “nitrifying bacteria as dominant strain account for 60-80%,” “denitrifying bacteria as dominant strain account for 60-80%,” and “anammox bacteria as dominant strain account for 60-80%.” The instant Specification states that the respective bacteria account for 60-80% in the corresponding sludge (¶[0037], ¶[0068], ¶[0164]), but does not disclose what the recited percentages are measured relative to or the basis of measurement. It is unclear whether the recited 60-80% refers to the total bacterial population, total microorganisms, biomass, cell count, or another measurement basis. Applicant may amend the claim to clarify the basis for the recited percentages.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAO et al. (CN115072870A, hereinafter YAO) in view of LV et al. (CN113716680A, hereinafter LV) and QUAN et al. (CN102336472A, hereinafter QUAN).
Regarding Claim 1, YAO discloses a wastewater treatment system for achieving efficient denitrification of wastewater through synergistic heterotrophic and autotrophic processes (¶[n0001]).
FIG. 1 illustrates that the system includes a raw water tank 10, an anaerobic tank 20, an aerobic tank 30, an anoxic tank 40, and a sedimentation tank 50 connected in sequence. The raw water tank 10 is connected to the anaerobic tank 20 and the anoxic tank 40 through respective inlet pumps and inlet pipes, and the bottom of the sedimentation tank 50 is connected to the front end of the anaerobic tank 20 through a sludge return pump 51 and a sludge return pipe (¶¶[n0061]–[n0063]).
The anoxic tank 40 contains denitrifying bacteria for full denitrification and partial short-cut denitrification and anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria for anaerobic ammonia oxidation using nitrite nitrogen produced by the short-cut denitrification and ammonia nitrogen in the raw water entering the anoxic tank (¶[n0064]).
Additionally, stirring devices are provided in the anaerobic tank 20 and the anoxic tank 40 to mix the components evenly and improve reaction efficiency, and the aerobic tank 30 includes an aeration device having an aerator 34 located at the bottom of the tank (¶¶[n0067]–[n0068]).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of YAO
During operation, effluent from the anaerobic tank 20 enters the aerobic tank 30 and undergoes aeration and nitrification to remove ammonia nitrogen. The aerobic effluent then enters the anoxic tank 40 and is mixed with raw water entering the anoxic tank, where nitrate nitrogen produced in the aerobic tank is converted to nitrite nitrogen. A portion of the nitrite nitrogen is reduced to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria, while another portion undergoes anaerobic ammonia oxidation with ammonia nitrogen in the raw water by anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. The anoxic effluent then enters the sedimentation tank 50 for sludge-water separation, with the supernatant discharged and sludge returned to the front end of the anaerobic tank 20 (¶¶[n0078]–[n0080]).
Regarding the limitation “a sludge recycling outlet of the sedimentation pool is connected to a sludge recycling inlet of the aerobic pool through a first external pipeline,” YAO returns sludge from the sedimentation tank 50 to the anaerobic tank 20 through a sludge return pipe. The anaerobic tank and aerobic tank are each biological sludge treatment stages differing in the oxygen condition. A person skilled in the art would have selected the aerobic pool as the sludge return location as an obvious matter of design choice to predictably recycle settled sludge back into a biological treatment stage (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding the limitations “aerobic sludge with nitrifying bacteria as dominant strain,” “anoxic sludge with denitrifying bacteria as dominant strain,” and “anoxic sludge with anammox bacteria as dominant strain,” the recited sludges and respective bacteria are regarded as materials worked upon by the claimed system. YAO discloses biological nitrification in the aerobic tank and the corresponding denitrifying and anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in the anoxic tank. The recited sludge and bacterial compositions do not impart patentable distinction to the claimed system (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580; 1967; In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940; 1963).
However, YAO does not explicitly disclose a weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool having a first electrode plate group connected to a first power supply for electrically stimulating denitrifying bacteria.
LV discloses an electrochemically coupled sulfur autotrophic denitrification system for deep denitrification of landfill leachate (¶[n0001]). FIG. 1 illustrates that the reaction system includes a power supply 41 and electrode plates 42 arranged within the reaction chamber 1. The electrode plates 42 are made of graphite, uniformly arranged at the bottom of the support plate 12, and vertically fixed to the support plate 12. The power supply 41 is a DC constant-voltage power supply electrically connected to the electrode plates 42 in pairs through an anode and cathode using titanium wires (¶[n0050]). Accordingly, the disclosed electrode plate material corresponds to the claimed graphite electrode plates.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of LV
During operation, functional microorganisms accumulate on the sulfur particles, carbon particles, and electrode plates within the reaction chamber. Sulfur autotrophic denitrification on the sulfur particles is coupled with hydrogen autotrophic denitrification by microorganisms on the cathode plate and carbon particle surfaces, and electrochemical stimulation enhances the activity of the functional microorganisms to improve denitrification efficiency (¶[n0053]).
Example 3 evaluates the effect of current intensity on denitrification at current intensities ranging from 20–100 mA. Under low current intensity conditions, current stimulation enhances biological metabolism and mass transfer, promotes biological reaction processes, and improves TN removal rate, with 60 mA selected as the preferred current intensity based on nitrogen removal efficiency and operating cost (¶¶[n0064]–[n0065]). Based on the disclosure, the low-current electrical stimulation is interpreted as weak electrical stimulation.
The denitrification reaction system disclosed by LV addresses incomplete and unstable denitrification in landfill leachate treatment by coupling electrochemistry with sulfur autotrophic denitrification and using weak-current electrical stimulation to enhance the activity of denitrifying microorganisms and improve denitrification efficiency (¶[n0018]). In view of YAO’s conventional anoxic denitrification system, a person skilled in the art would apply weak-current electrical stimulation to the anoxic tank to predictably enhance the activity of denitrifying microorganisms and improve denitrification efficiency.
Regarding the limitation “a voltage applied to the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool is in a range of 1.0-2.0 V,” the recited voltage range is regarded as a result-effective variable. LV uses a DC constant-voltage power supply and demonstrates that electrical stimulation intensity affects denitrification efficiency. A person skilled in the art would have optimized the applied voltage through routine experimentation to predictably obtain the recited range of 1.0-2.0 V (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding the limitation the electrode plates are cuboid, the recited cuboid shape is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. LV provides electrode plates within the reaction chamber. A person skilled in the art would have selected a cuboid shape for the electrode plates to predictably provide the known electrode function within the reaction chamber (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the weak-current electrical stimulation, as disclosed by LV, to the anoxic tank in the wastewater treatment system by YAO.
However, modified YAO does not explicitly disclose a micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool having a second electrode plate group connected to a second power supply for electrically stimulating anammox bacteria.
QUAN discloses a water treatment environmental protection device (¶[0002]). For anaerobic ammonia oxidation treatment, an iron-graphite electrode pair is inserted into the reactor, with an iron anode and a graphite cathode. An external electric field having a voltage of less than 0.8 V and a current of less than 5 mA promotes the growth and biological activity of anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, while the microcurrent promotes biological reactions and increases nitrogen removal efficiency (¶[0007]).
FIG. 1 illustrates that the electro-enhanced anaerobic ammonia oxidation reactor 1 includes an iron electrode 7 as the anode and a graphite electrode 8 as the cathode, which are connected to an external DC regulated power supply 6. The electrodes are inserted vertically into the reactor, and the applied voltage is adjusted by the external DC regulated power supply. At a voltage of ≤0.6 V and a current of less than 5 mA, the biological treatment process is promoted (¶¶[0017]–[0018]). The disclosed voltage of ≤0.6 V overlaps the claimed range of "0.2-0.6 V."
PNG
media_image3.png
880
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of QUAN
The electro-enhanced anammox reactor disclosed by QUAN addresses the slow reproduction and difficulty in culturing and enriching anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria by generating a micro-electric field that enhances enzyme activity and biodegradation and enables rapid initiation of the anaerobic ammonia oxidation process (¶[0004], ¶[0009]). In view of modified YAO’s weak-current anoxic denitrification stage and anammox treatment, a person skilled in the art would incorporate a micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool in sequence after the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool to predictably enhance the activity of anammox bacteria and improve nitrogen removal efficiency.
Regarding the first stirring device in the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the second stirring device in the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool, YAO provides a stirring device in an anoxic tank to mix the components and improve reaction efficiency. A person skilled in the art would have provided a stirring device in each anoxic pool as an obvious matter of design choice to predictably provide the same mixing function in each pool (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding the limitation “different voltages are applied according to a type of a sludge pool and actual conductivity in a landfill leachate treatment process,” the applied voltage is regarded as a result-effective variable. LV and QUAN apply different electrical stimulation conditions for different biological treatment processes, and the electrical response of the wastewater varies with conductivity. A person skilled in the art would have adjusted the applied voltage according to the type of sludge pool and actual conductivity through routine experimentation to predictably obtain the desired electrical stimulation in each pool (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding the limitation “cross-sectional area of a single electrode plate accounts for at least 50% of that of each of the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool,” the recited area ratio is regarded as a parameter subject to routine optimization. QUAN discloses selecting electrode dimensions relative to the reactor dimensions (¶[0018]). A person skilled in the art would have optimized the electrode plate size relative to each anoxic pool to predictably obtain the recited ratio of at least 50% (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding the limitation “a spacing between an anode and a cathode of each of the electrode plates is greater than 0.5 m,” the recited electrode spacing is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice and a parameter subject to routine optimization. LV and QUAN each provide paired anode and cathode electrodes within an electrically enhanced biological treatment reactor. A person skilled in the art would have selected and optimized the spacing between the anode and cathode for each electrode group through routine experimentation to predictably obtain the recited spacing greater than 0.5 m (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the micro electrical stimulation, as disclosed by QUAN, into a separate anoxic pool in sequence after the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool in the wastewater treatment system by modified YAO.
Regarding Claim 2, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. Regarding the limitations “the spacing between an anode and a cathode in the first electrode plate group is in a range of 0.5-1.0 m” and “the cross-sectional area of the single electrode plate accounts for 60-70% of that of each of the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool,” the recited spacing and area ranges are regarded as parameters subject to routine optimization. As previously discussed, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the spacing between the anode and cathode and the electrode plate size relative to each anoxic pool through routine experimentation to predictably obtain the claimed ranges (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. Regarding the recited conductivity threshold and ranges of DC voltage, electric field intensity, anode potential, and cathode potential for the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool, the recited electrical operating conditions are regarded as result-effective variables subject to routine optimization. As previously discussed, LV and QUAN disclose electrically stimulated biological treatment systems using graphite electrodes and different electrical operating conditions for the respective biological treatment processes. A person skilled in the art would have optimized the electrical operating conditions according to the type of sludge pool and conductivity of the landfill leachate through routine experimentation to predictably obtain the claimed ranges (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. FIG. 1 of YAO illustrates a raw water tank having a water inlet at an upper portion. Regarding the limitation “an emptying valve at a bottom,” providing a bottom emptying valve is a well-known tank feature for facilitating complete drainage of the tank.
Regarding Claim 5, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. YAO discloses that the raw water tank 10 is connected to the anaerobic tank 20 through first inlet pump 11 and a first inlet pipe, and to the anoxic tank 40 through second inlet pump 14 and a second inlet pipe. YAO further discloses that effluent from the aerobic tank 30 enters the anoxic tank 40 (¶[n0076], ¶[n0079]). In view of modified YAO’s arrangement, the aerobic pool outlet would be connected with the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool inlet through a pipeline.
Regarding the limitation “the water collecting pool is connected with a water inlet of the aerobic pool,” the recited routing arrangement is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. YAO discloses pump-assisted transfer of raw water from the raw water tank into the biological treatment train. In the modified treatment sequence, a person skilled in the art would have routed the raw water to the aerobic pool as the first biological treatment stage (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding Claim 6, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 5. YAO discloses that effluent from the aerobic tank 30 enters the anoxic tank 40, and effluent from the anoxic tank 40 enters the sedimentation tank 50 (¶¶[n0079]–[n0080]).
Regarding the recited arrangement of the water inlet at an upper portion of one side of each anoxic pool and the water outlet at an upper portion of the opposite side, the recited inlet and outlet placement is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. It is a well-understood principle of treatment tank hydraulics that upper inlet and outlet placement permits interstage transfer at the operating liquid level while avoiding sludge withdrawal, and opposite-side placement promotes flow across the pool and reduces hydraulic short-circuiting (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding Claim 7, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 6. LV discloses a circulation system including a circulation pipe connected between the inlet pool 32 and the outlet pool 23 and a circulation pump 51 installed on the circulation pipe. During microbial inoculation, the sludge-water mixture in the outlet pool 23 is returned to the inlet pool 32 and reenters the reaction chamber (¶[n0052], ¶[n0057]).
Regarding the limitation “the water outlet of the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool is further connected with the water inlet of the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool through another pipeline,” the recited recycle routing is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. In view of modified YAO’s sequential anoxic treatment stages, a person skilled in the art would have applied the known circulation arrangement to predictably recirculate wastewater through the anoxic treatment stages (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding Claim 8, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. FIG. 1 of YAO illustrates the anaerobic tank 20, aerobic tank 30, anoxic tank 40, and sedimentation tank 50 connected in sequence. The effluent from the aerobic tank 30 enters the anoxic tank 40, and the effluent from the anoxic tank 40 enters the sedimentation tank 50 (¶[n0061], ¶¶[n0079]–[n0080]). Based on the disclosure, YAO provides the general concept of a sequential biological treatment train.
Regarding the recited arrangement in which adjacent treatment pools share a same side wall and the water outlet of one pool also acts as the water inlet of the next pool, the recited pool arrangement is regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. In view of modified YAO’s sequential treatment train including the weak electrical stimulation anoxic pool and the micro electrical stimulation anoxic pool, a person skilled in the art would have arranged adjacent pools to share a side wall and a common outlet/inlet to predictably provide direct fluid transfer between successive treatment stages and reduce connecting piping (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672; 1966).
Regarding Claim 9, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. YAO discloses that the bottom of sedimentation tank 50 is connected to sludge return pump 51 and a sludge return pipe, corresponding to the sludge recycling outlet arranged at the bottom of the sedimentation pool (¶[n0063]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified YAO makes obvious the bioaugmentation system for denitrification of landfill leachate of Claim 1. YAO discloses nitrification in the aerobic tank 30, denitrification by denitrifying bacteria in the anoxic tank 40, and anaerobic ammonia oxidation by anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in the anoxic tank 40 (¶[n0064], ¶¶[n0078]–[n0079]).
Regarding the limitations “nitrifying bacteria as dominant strain,” “denitrifying bacteria as dominant strain,” and “anammox bacteria as dominant strain,” modified YAO provides the corresponding aerobic, weak electrical stimulation anoxic, and micro electrical stimulation anoxic biological treatment stages. The recited sludge and respective bacteria are regarded as materials worked upon by the claimed system and do not impart patentable distinction to the claimed system (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580; 1967; In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940; 1963)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights