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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using a newly found secondary reference Cohen et al., (“Cohen”, US 2016/0060113).
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks section, Applicant discusses the previous objections to the Specification and claims and previous 112 rejections. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections and 112 rejections due to the amendments made to address them.
On pages 7-10, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of independent Claim 1, involving primary reference, Vanotti et al., (“Vanotti”, US 2008/0314837), and secondary reference, Voogt et al., (“Voogt”, US 2017/0129819). Here, Applicant argues that primary reference Vanotti does not disclose the limitations "producing an aerobically treated sludge comprising dissolved phosphates in an aerobic reactor" and "recirculating at least of portion of [a] calcium phosphate fraction back into the aerobically treated sludge to form a mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate." Applicant summarizes the claimed invention and how it removes phosphates from a liquid stream. Applicant states that the mixing the sludge with recirculated calcium phosphate results in precisely controlling the amount of phosphate precipitating agent to precipitate calcium phosphates in the phosphate precipitation unit. Applicant then specifically argues against combining secondary reference Voogt with Vanotti. Applicant asserts that the homogenization tank 2 of Vanotti is not an aerobic reactor that carries out aerobic digestion as claimed. However, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0043] of Vanotti shows that the homogenization tank 2 aerates the sludge via its mixer, indicating that air is added to the system. Furthermore, the Examiner also notes that the nitrification bioreactor unit uses aerobic digestion in which this bioreactor also receives mixed recirculated sludge via branch point leading to reactor 6a, (See paragraphs [0005] & [0006], and See Figure 1B and See paragraph [0037], Vanotti). For these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues on pages 8-9 that the combined teachings of Vanotti and Voogt do not make it obvious to recirculate at least a portion of a calcium phosphate fraction back into the aerobically treated sludge to form a mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate. Here, the Examiner clarifies that the limitations to be disclosed by Voogt and by newly found secondary reference Cohen are “the mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate or precipitate phosphates, including brushite, and that the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction dissolve to form the mixed sludge”, not to recirculate at least a portion of a calcium phosphate fraction back into the aerobically treated sludge since that limitation is still disclosed by Vanotti. Applicant argues that it is not clear how Voogt’s sludge is incorporated into Vanotti’s method, asking if the manure of Vanotti is replaced with Voogt’s sludge or to combine the sludge of Voogt with the manure of Vanotti. The Examiner notes that the combination demonstrates that brushite is also formed in the mixed sludge which would depend on the additional components added to Voogt’s sludge that would also be added to Vanotti’s sludge as well, (See paragraph [0021], [0041], [0043], Voogt), in which the benefits of generating brushite in the sludge are further demonstrated in Voogt, (See paragraphs [0021] & [0004], Voogt). Lastly, In response to applicant's argument here, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On page 9, Applicant further argues that paragraph [0041] of Voogt allegedly does not appear to disclose a mixed sludge saturated in soluble calcium phosphate and precipitated phosphates, including brushite. The Examiner notes first that Vanotti discloses mixed sludge with soluble calcium phosphate and some precipitated phosphates already. Further, the Examiner notes that in order for phosphate to precipitate, the solution containing it must already be saturated, or super-saturated. Voogt demonstrates precipitation of the brushite, another form of calcium phosphate, thus the solution was saturated, (See paragraph [0043], Voogt). Thus, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant next argues that the system of Vanotti requires that the precipitated phosphates do not redissolve when they are mixed with the manure because the following PAM (polyacrylamide) flocculation would not remove redissolved phosphates. The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive pointing to paragraph [0042] of Vanotti which indicates that remixing the phosphorous sludge back into the raw manure of the homogenization tank, while it reduces the concentration of soluble phosphorous, it does not eliminate the soluble phosphate. The Examiner notes that Vanotti employs other steps in its process such as the nitrification bioreactor unit and the phosphorous separation/reactor unit that will remove soluble phosphorous/phosphate. Thus, the Examiner takes the position that Vanotti does not teach away from dissolving the calcium phosphate because it still retains a level of soluble phosphate in the homogenization tank that is later precipitated in a later step. The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that newly found secondary reference Cohen discloses dissolving the calcium phosphate fraction instead.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejections of dependent claims, but does not put forth any other specific arguments against the rejections for these claims, except for adding Humbert’s secondary pH adjusting agent in claim 2. Applicant argues that decreasing the pH would increase the dissolution of the recirculated phosphate precipitate in the mixed sludge, from which Vanotti allegedly teaches away. However, the Examiner notes that as indicated above, Vanotti still operates with soluble phosphate in its homogenization tank in which phosphate is later precipitated, so the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The remainder of remarks are moot.
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 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, 5-7, 14 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanotti et al., (“Vanotti”, US 2008/0314837), in view of Voogt et al., (“Voogt”, US 2017/0129819), in further view of Cohen et al., (“Cohen”, US 2016/0060113).
Regarding Claims 1, 5-7, 14 & 16, Vanotti discloses a method of removing soluble phosphates from an aerobically treated sludge, (See paragraphs [0030], [0042], [0043], Vanotti), the method comprising: (a) producing an aerobically treated sludge comprising dissolved phosphates in an aerobic reactor, (See Figure 1B, See paragraphs [0035], [0042], [0043]; soluble phosphorous in mixture; additionally Nitrification reactor 6b, See paragraph [0034], [0037]); (b) dewatering the aerobically treated sludge to form a dewatered cake comprising precipitated phosphates and other solids and a liquid fraction comprising dissolved phosphates, (See Figure 1B, See paragraph [0035], [0039]); (c) adding a calcium phosphate precipitating agent to the liquid fraction to increase the pH of the liquid fraction and precipitate phosphates, (See paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0034]); (d) separating the liquid fraction into a calcium phosphate fraction comprising the precipitated phosphates, and other residual solids and a liquid effluent, (See paragraph [0020]); (e) recirculating at least a portion of the calcium phosphate fraction back into the aerobically treated sludge, whereby the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction forms a mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate, (See Figure 1B, See paragraph [0038]; return sludge is recirculated via branching points to both homogenization tank 2 and to denitrification/nitrification unit 6a/6b); (f) adding a polymer flocculant to the mixed sludge, (See paragraph [0038]); and (g) dewatering the mixed sludge to form additional dewatered cake comprising additional precipitated phosphates and additional other solids, (See Figure 1B, See paragraphs [0035], [0038]).
Vanotti does not disclose the mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate or precipitate phosphates, including brushite, or that the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction dissolve to form the mixed sludge.
Voogt discloses the mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate, (See paragraph [0041], Voogt), and precipitate phosphates, including brushite, (See paragraph [0021], [0043], Voogt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Vanotti by incorporating the mixed sludge that is saturated in calcium phosphate and precipitate phosphates, including brushite as in Voogt so “advantageously the present method provides phosphate…in the form of brushite (instead of prior art struvite)” in which “brushite is a phosphate mineral that can be used in agriculture directly, due to its favorable uptake characteristics, and can be reprocessed into high-grade phosphorous ore”, (See paragraph [0021], Voogt), as applied to “agricultural waste disposal” in Vanotti, (See paragraph [0004], Vanotti).
Modified Vanotti does not disclose the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction dissolve to form the mixed sludge where the calcium phosphate is solubilized.
Cohen discloses the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction dissolve to form the mixed sludge where the calcium phosphate is solubilized, (See paragraph [0179], [0237], Cohen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating the precipitated phosphates in the calcium phosphate fraction dissolve to form the mixed sludge as in Cohen to “enable processing of recovered phosphorus into pure and valuable forms in an environmentally friendly and cost effective way”, (See paragraph [0018], Cohen), that is “clean from heavy metals”, (See paragraph [0017], Cohen), so “the feed solution is therefore preferably treated for removal of heavy metals in the recovering process”, (See paragraph [0237], Cohen).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein the calcium phosphate precipitating agent comprises calcium hydroxide, (See paragraphs [0012], [0013]; Vanotti).
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the calcium phosphate precipitating agent consists of calcium hydroxide, (See paragraphs [0012], [0013]; Vanotti).
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, in which the phosphates precipitated by the calcium phosphate precipitating agent have a brushite content of at least 90 wt.%, (See paragraph [0043], Voogt; anticipates at 90%).
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed sludge has a pH in the range from 6.5 to 7.5, (See Table 1, Vanotti; See paragraph [0044], Voogt).
Claim 16: The method of claim 1, wherein only a portion of the calcium phosphate fraction back is recirculated into the aerobically treated sludge to form the mixed sludge, (See Figure 1B, See paragraph [0038]; return sludge is recirculated via branching points to both homogenization tank 2 and to denitrification/nitrification unit 6a/6b, thus less than the entire recirculated amount goes to one unit “only a portion”).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 9 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanotti et al., (“Vanotti”, US 2008/0314837), in view of Voogt et al., (“Voogt”, US 2017/0129819), in further view of Cohen et al., (“Cohen”, US 2016/0060113) in further view of Humbert et al., (“Humbert”, US 2020/0331787).
Regarding Claims 2-4, 8, 9 & 15, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising adding a secondary pH adjusting agent to the mixed sludge to decrease the pH of the mixed sludge.
Humbert discloses further comprising adding a secondary pH adjusting agent to the mixed sludge to decrease the pH of the mixed sludge, (See paragraphs [0071], [0075], Humbert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating further comprising adding a secondary pH adjusting agent to the mixed sludge to decrease the pH of the mixed sludge as in Humbert in order to “control the pH”, (See paragraph [0075], Humbert), to “use values of pH [which] are particularly favorable to the release of phosphates in the sludge”, (See paragraph [0071], Humbert).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the calcium phosphate precipitating agent comprises calcium hydroxide, (See paragraphs [0012], [0013]; Vanotti).
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the calcium phosphate precipitating agent consists of calcium hydroxide, (See paragraphs [0012], [0013]; Vanotti).
Claim 8: The method of claim 2, in which the phosphates precipitated by the calcium phosphate precipitating agent have a brushite content of at least 90 wt.%, (See paragraph [0043], Voogt; anticipates at 90%).
Claim 9: The method of claim 3, in which the phosphates precipitated by the calcium phosphate precipitating agent have a brushite content of at least 90 wt.%, (See paragraph [0043], Voogt; anticipates at 90%).
Claim 15: The method of claim 2, wherein the mixed sludge has a pH in the range from 5 to 7, (See paragraph [0044], Voogt; anticipates from 6 to 7).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanotti et al., (“Vanotti”, US 2008/0314837), in view of Voogt et al., (“Voogt”, US 2017/0129819), in further view of Cohen et al., (“Cohen”, US 2016/0060113) in further view of Matsch et al., (“Matsch”, US 4,042,493).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Matsch discloses at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake, (See Table 1, “Percent overall phosphate* removal” “91.3%” “93.8”, See column 19, Matsch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake as in Matsch in order to provide “a substantially enhanced overall removal of phosphate from the sewage being treated”, (See column 19, lines 6-8, Matsch), “which results in increased efficiency of the phosphate removal from the wastewater”, (See column 3, lines 8-11, Matsch).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanotti et al., (“Vanotti”, US 2008/0314837), in view of Voogt et al., (“Voogt”, US 2017/0129819), in further view of Cohen et al., (“Cohen”, US 2016/0060113) in further view of Matsch et al., (“Matsch”, US 4,042,493).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Matsch discloses at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake, (See Table 1, “Percent overall phosphate* removal” “91.3%” “93.8”, See column 19, Matsch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake as in Matsch in order to provide “a substantially enhanced overall removal of phosphate from the sewage being treated”, (See column 19, lines 6-8, Matsch), “which results in increased efficiency of the phosphate removal from the wastewater”, (See column 3, lines 8-11, Matsch). Regarding Claim 10, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Matsch discloses at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake, (See Table 1, “Percent overall phosphate* removal” “91.3%” “93.8”, See column 19, Matsch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake as in Matsch in order to provide “a substantially enhanced overall removal of phosphate from the sewage being treated”, (See column 19, lines 6-8, Matsch), “which results in increased efficiency of the phosphate removal from the wastewater”, (See column 3, lines 8-11, Matsch). Regarding Claim 10, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
Matsch discloses at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake, (See Table 1, “Percent overall phosphate* removal” “91.3%” “93.8”, See column 19, Matsch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vanotti by incorporating at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake as in Matsch in order to provide “a substantially enhanced overall removal of phosphate from the sewage being treated”, (See column 19, lines 6-8, Matsch), “which results in increased efficiency of the phosphate removal from the wastewater”, (See column 3, lines 8-11, Matsch). Regarding Claim 10, modified Vanotti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method removes at least 90 wt.% of total solids, (Table 6, “Removal Efficiency %”, “TSS”, “90.6”, “92.1”, “94.7”, based on paragraph [0039], Vanotti; anticipates at these values), but does not disclose at least 50 wt.% soluble phosphates from the aerobically digested sludge in the additional dewatered cake.
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
